swestrup comments on 3 Levels of Rationality Verification - Less Wrong

43 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 March 2009 05:19PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (182)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: swestrup 15 March 2009 09:11:29PM 3 points [-]

A friend of mine, the most consistently rational person I know of, once told me that his major criteria for whether a piece of information is useful is if it can allow him to forget multiple other pieces of information, because they are now derivable from his corpus of information, given this new fact.

I have a vague feeling that there should be a useful test of rationality based on this. Some sort of information modeling test whereby one is given a complex set of interrelated but random data, and a randomly-generated data-expression language. Scoring is based on how close to optimal once gets on writing a generator for the given data in the given language.

Unfortunately, I think this is someone one could explicitly train for, and someone with knowledge of data compression theory would probably be at an advantage.

Comment deleted 15 March 2009 09:27:49PM [-]
Comment author: Vladimir_Golovin 15 March 2009 09:39:55PM *  3 points [-]

Yes, "not equals", but compression is necessary for reality-mapping, which is one of the key components of rationality as defined at the beginning of this post. There's a great quote on this:

“We can take this huge universe, and put it inside a very tiny head -- you fold it.”

Comment deleted 15 March 2009 09:44:20PM *  [-]
Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 March 2009 10:11:59PM 2 points [-]

That's, um, hardly my own innovation...

Comment author: swestrup 31 March 2009 06:22:24PM 2 points [-]

I'm only now replying to this, since I've only just figured out what it was that I was groping for in the above.

The important thing is not compression, but integration of new knowledge so that it affects future cognition, and future behaviour. The ability to change one's methodologies and approaches based on new knowledge would seem to be key to rationality. The more subtle the influence (ie, a new bit of math changes how you approach buying meat at the supermarket) then the better the evidence for deep integration of new knowledge.