I’d still like the ability to make the explicit abstract just read off the text after a certain point, but I suppose it would require a lot of work to support that functionality.
I agree fairly strongly, but this seems far from the final word on the subject, to me.
Hmm, actually I think you’re right and that it may be more complex than this.
Ah. I take you to be saying that the quality of the clever arguer’s argument can be high variance, since there is a good deal of chance in the quality of evidence cherry-picking is able to find. A good point.
Exactly. There may only be a weak correlation between evidence and truth. And maybe you can do something with it or maybe it’s better to focus on stronger signals instead.
I view the issue of intellectual modesty much like the issue of anthropics. The only people who matter are those whose decisions are subjunctively linked to yours (it only starts getting complicated when you start asking whether you should be intellectually modest about your reasoning about intellectual modesty)
One issue with the clever arguer is that the persuasiveness of their arguments might have very little to do with how persuasive they should be, so attempting to work off expectations might fail.
Where would you start with his work?
I’ve heard of it, but I haven’t read into it, so I avoided using the term
Maybe there is a possible project in this direction. I’ll assume that this is general advice you’d give to many people who want to work in this space. If it is important for people to build a model of what is required for AI to go well then people may as well work on this together. And sure there’s websites like Less Wrong, but people can exchange information much faster by chatting either in person or over Skype. (Of course there are worries that this might lead to overly correlated answers)
On a related, but somewhat different issue: I feel that there has been something of an under-investment in rationality community building overall. EA has CEA, but rationality doesn’t have an equivalent (CFAR doesn’t play the same community building role). There isn’t any organisation responsible for growing the community, organising conferences and addressing challenges that arrive.
That said, I’m not sure that there is necessarily agreement that there is a single mission. Some people are in rationality for ai, some insight porn, some for the personal development and some simply for social reasons. Even though EA has a massively broad goal, doing the most good seems to suffice to spur action in a way that rationality hasn’t.
This doesn’t seem to accurately describe contemporary politics, at least in the Western world. The left wing isn’t just non-central groups, but the cultural/intellectual elites.
Probably wrong editor
There’s other considerations that slow large code bases:
The more features you have, the more potential interactions
The bigger a codebase is, the harder it is to understand it
Having more features means more work is involved in testing
Customer bases shift over time from early adopters to those who want more stability and reliability
When a code base is more mature, there’s more chance that a change could make the product worse, so you have to spend more time on evaluation
A larger customer base forces you to care more about rare issues
The figures should be less than this. Only a fraction of human time is spent learning.
What’s happening with regards to meta? Are they just going to be personal blogposts now?
How is predictive error, as opposed to our perception of predictive error, defined if not relative to the territory?
If there is nothing but models, why is your claim that there is nothing but models true, as opposed to merely being a useful model?
Is predictive power an instrumental or terminal goal?
Is your view a denial of the territory or agnosticism about it?
Is the therapy example a true model of the world or a useful fiction?
I thought that GPT2 was funny at first, but after a while it got irritating. If there’s a next time, it should be more limited in how many comments it makes. 1) You could train it on how many votes its comments got to try to figure out which comments to reply to 2) It might also automatically reply to every reply on its comments.
1) That’s a good point, but I was thinking about how to improve the high school maths syllabus, not so much about high school in general. I don’t have any strong opinions on removing literature instead if it were one or the other. However, I do have other ideas for literature. I’d replace literature with a subject that is half writing/giving speeches about what students are passionate about and half reading books mostly just for participation marks. I’d have the kinds of things students currently do in literature part of an elective only.
2) p-testing is a rather mechanised process. It’s exactly the kind of thing high school is good at teaching. Basic Bayesian statistics only has one key formula (although it has another form). Even if there is a need for prerequisite units in order to prepare students, it still seems worthwhile.
That’s a good point. There’s all kinds of things that might be worth considering adding such as programming, psychology or political philosophy. I guess my point was only that if we were going to replace it with something within maths, then stats seems to be the best candidate (at least better than any of the other content that I covered in university)
Good point, I should have clarified this more. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t know how to calculate the area and circumference of a circle as people may actually use that. It’s more to do with all the things to do with tangents and chords and shapes inscribed in circles.