The Essentialism of Lesswrong
Ignore the Theory of Computation. Assume computers can realize smoothness and division, assume the Law of the Excluded Middle.
Ignore Russel, Gödel, Tarski, Church, Brouwer, Rice, Friedman.
Especially Rice.
Ignore what SimPy and TensorFlow actually does. Ignore what CISC and RISC does. Go back to pre rigorous 18th century mathematics and treat it as ground truth.
Ignore Type Theory but use its fruits.
Misread Bayes’ Theorem as a philosophy, or worse, as a logic.
Ignore the fact that Newcombs Problem is just an instance of Lawvere’s Fixed-point, endlessly discuss paradoxes of statistical frameworks.
Form strong opinions about them. Forget that the issues are baked in.
Ignore
But forget how to write
Think that
is enough.
Assume that intelligence is non-trivial, by assuming that triviality exists. Ignore the fact that you can’t define it.
Misunderstand Entropy by understanding Entropy.
Diagonalize against LLMs with LLMs. Forget that you can’t win. Be lazy.
Think in ontologies never in calculi.
Essentialize Language and ignore semantics. Adopt corporate jargon and talk about your feelings.
Adopt a label. Be rational, but do not be rigorous. Be TLDR. Congratulations, you are less wrong without more rigor. You are Salieri.
Update: After −45 Karma, I really wan’t to make this point.
I didn’t learn anything from this. It looks like there are things to learn here, but you seem to have deliberately chosen a writing style that does not permit it.
That is pretty annoying.
I realize I’m revealing myself as the exact kind of hack/rube you’re railing against, but: which one? There are a lot of academics and institutions with that name.
It’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice’s_theorem . It’s one of the most abused impossibility theorems, up there with Godel etc (oh look who’s right there in OP). And then there’s the ending.
its smart think in terms in terms of abused theorems. generally be obsessed with what people abuse. add the second law to the list also. take a topos literally, oh wait, its as semantic equivocation is implicitly on the list.
You’re not the kind of hack/rube this post is about because you are demonstrating hallmarks of critical thinking and epistemic humility.
You admit a knowledge gap, you reflect...
See the perfect example bellow.
While Gödel is indeed notorious in this sense, note that Rice does not count as “abused” outside the lesswrong community, rather, it is more like that people here cannot deal with it.
Unwillingness to accept limitative notions and to engage with formal logic when it’s relevant makes this community isolated.
Also, once you reason constructively, it is hard to induce an “abuse” of limitative result because they are already implicit in a “falsehood as proof of absurdity”.
Under LEM. ψ⊢Con(¬φ)≡ψ⊢φ→⊥
Gödel then becomes the “source” of “false” simple as that.
Update: After −45 Karma, I really wan’t to make this point.
Adopt a label. Be rational, but do not be rigorous. Be TLDR. Congratulations, you are less wrong without more rigor. You never think outside the box. You will never be a proud owner of negative Karma, you are too afraid to think outside the box. You are the box.