= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Will_Newsome comments on A Rationalist's Tale - 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 (305)
I consistently talk about things I have 1-20% confidence in in a way that makes me sound like I have 80-95% confidence in them. This is largely because there's no way to non-misleadingly talk about things with 1-20% logical probability (1-20% decision theoretic importance whatever-that-means). It's really a problem with norms of communication and English language, one of the few things where it's not my fault that I can't communicate easily. Most of the time I just suck at communicating.
Unfortunately, good rationalists should spend a lot of time hovering around things with 50% probability of being true, and anything moderately on the lower side of that ends up sounding completely ridiculous and anything moderately on the higher side of that ends up sounding completely reasonable.
Then just write "around 1-20%". It will make your comments more clunky, but it's not like they can get much worse anyway, and it's better than the alternative.
(If only there were a language that had short concepts for things like "frequency=3%, utility=+10^15,-10^6 relative to counterfactual surgery world".)