= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Many Reasons - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (4)
No, if you expect to find ten reasons to believe something, something is going on. If X is true it's perfectly reasonable to have found ten pieces of evidence for X and none against it. Or am I missing something?
I listed one of the things that could be going on as one's distribution being skewed, which however standardly happens for a distribution of one's future probabilities as one veers away from .5, so I was confused and shouldn't have listed it as a thing going on. I ended up defining "chunks of equal size" in an unreasonable way by relating them to binomial with p=.5, though the math is correct given that unreasonable definition. My brain barfed on that; sorry for making you read this. The idea for the post came more from a utility estimate being a random walk if one learns about independent random components to it, and I'm now rewriting the post in a way that's correct.
(Whew, it took me a while to articulate the exact thing I did wrong.)
Hmm. I'm still trying to parse the post, and there seems to be something your argument might not have captured. Does it apply to value judgments? Say, if you find you have found a hundred apparently independent reasons for not hiring someone, does this fact demand an explanation?