I also realized a lot of my personal philosophy was independently discovered on lesswrong when I was about 16.
As for doubting your ideas—there exists a healthy level, but it perhaps actually increases as you age. A little less doubt is useful for exploration.
Randomness does seem important to many algorithms. ET Jaynes argued that there is ~always a more clever and harder to find deterministic approach that outperforms any randomized approach. There do seem to be counter examples in some cases though, such as mixed strategies in competitive games. However, I guess the most well-studied version of this question is BPP versus P which is still open.
I’ve actually been recently thinking about randomness in ML, and I’ve come to a compelling case for it’s specific role. The insights do seem to generalize to all problem-solving mechanisms in a way. I can expand if you want
I also realized a lot of my personal philosophy was independently discovered on lesswrong when I was about 16.
As for doubting your ideas—there exists a healthy level, but it perhaps actually increases as you age. A little less doubt is useful for exploration.
Randomness does seem important to many algorithms. ET Jaynes argued that there is ~always a more clever and harder to find deterministic approach that outperforms any randomized approach. There do seem to be counter examples in some cases though, such as mixed strategies in competitive games. However, I guess the most well-studied version of this question is BPP versus P which is still open.
Comment deleted
Sure