= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pjeby comments on Rationality is Systematized Winning - 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 (252)
There are two possible interpretations of "Rationalists should win", and it's likely the confusion is coming about from the second.
One use of "should" is to indicate a general social obligation: "people should be nice to each other", and the other is to indicate a personal entitlement: "you should be nice to me." i.e., "should" = "I deserve it"
It appears that some people may be using the latter interpretation, i.e., "I'm rational so I should win" -- placing the obligation on the universe rather than on themselves.
Perhaps "Rationalists choose to win", or "Winning is better than being right"?
I think Eliezer's point is closer to "Winning is the same as being right"; i.e., the evidence that you're right is that you won.
"Winning" and "being right" are different concepts. That is the point of distinguishing between epistemic and instrumental rationality.
Actually the problem is an ambiguity in "right" -- you can take the "right" course of action (instrumental rationality, or ethics), or you can have "right" belief (epistemic rationality).