= 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)
Your comment got voted up to +10 despite Eliezer's argument being a straightforward error of algorithmic probability; I don't know what to do about that and it stresses me out. Does anyone have ideas? It saddens me to see algorithmic probability so regularly abused on LW, but the few corrective posts on the matter, e.g. by Slepnev, don't seem to have permeated the LW memeplex, probably because they're too technical.
I think you are slightly misinterpreting things. As you pointed out, the established memeplex does lean heavily in favor of Eliezer's position on algorithmic probability theory rather than Slepnev's. But that doesn't mean that all of the upvoters agree with Eliezer's position--some of them probably just want to see you answer my question "Can you explain this?". In fact, I would very much like to see this question answered thoroughly in a way that makes sense to me. Vladimir's posts are a great start, but lacking knowledge of algorithmic probability theory, I don't really know how to put all of it together.
Thanks for the correction, that people are interested in it at least is a good sign.
What we really need is a well-written gentle introduction to algorithmic probability theory that carefully and clearly shows how it works and what it does and doesn't imply.