= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Incremental Progress and the Valley - 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 (105)
Oh no, more grandeur.
A rationalist can take a small concrete problem, reduce it to essentials, figure out a good strategy and follow it. No need to brainf*ck yourself and reevaluate your whole life - people have built bridges and discovered physical laws without it. For examples of what I want see Thomas Schelling's "Strategy of Conflict": no mystique, just clear mathematical analysis of many real-life problems. Starts out from toys, e.g. bargaining games and PD, and culminates in lots of useful tactics for nuclear deterrence that were actually adopted by the US military after the book's publication. How's that for "something to protect"?
I for one would be happy if you just wrote up, mathematically, your solution concept for Newcomb's and PD. Is it an extension of superrationality for asymmetric games, or something else entirely? If we slowly modify one player's payoffs in PD, at what precise moment do you stop cooperating?
If you know what you want so clearly, why not write it and post it? Less Wrong is what you make it.
Done. Let's see what you make of it.
He doesn't have your solution for Newcomb's and PD.
It's what a lot of people make it... and some people have more power over it than others.
Part of rationality is recognizing that there are things we can control, and things we can't. Another part is learning to tell the difference.