Most “Bayesians” are deceiving themselves about how much they are using it.
This is a frequently-made accusation which has very little basis in reality. The world is a big place, so you will be able to find some examples of such people, but central examples of LessWrong readers, rationalists, etc, are not going around claiming that they run their entire lives on explicit Bayes.
And then I thought to myself, “This LK99 issue seems complicated enough that it’d be worth doing an actual Bayesian calculation on it”—a rare thought; I don’t think I’ve done an actual explicit numerical Bayesian update in at least a year.
In the process of trying to set up an explicit calculation, I realized I felt very unsure about some critically important quantities, to the point where it no longer seemed worth trying to do the calculation with numbers. This is the System Working As Intended.
This is a frequently-made accusation which has very little basis in reality. The world is a big place, so you will be able to find some examples of such people, but central examples of LessWrong readers, rationalists, etc, are not going around claiming that they run their entire lives on explicit Bayes.
Nonetheless, the founder claims they should be.
Pretty sure it’s just false.
First found example: the last post by EY
That’s a story where he thinks he should do a Bayesian analysis, then doesn’t. It’s not a story where no one should do one.