Vladimir_Nesov comments on Elevator pitches/responses for rationality / AI - Less Wrong

17 Post author: lukeprog 02 February 2012 08:35PM

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

Comments (68)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 03 February 2012 12:17:22AM *  27 points [-]

What most people don't realize is that there is a mathematically optimal way to update your beliefs in response to evidence, and a mathematically optimal way to figure out which decision is most likely to bring you the most of what you want

You've said something similar in a recent video interview posted on LW, and it cringed me then, as it does now. We don't know of such optimal ways in the generality the context of your statement suggests, and any such optimal methods would be impractical even if known, which again is in conflict with the context. Similarly, turning to the interview, SingInst's standard positions on many issues don't follow from formal considerations such as logic and decision theory, there is no formal theory that represents them to any significant extent. If there is strength to the main arguments that support these positions, it doesn't currently take that form.

Comment author: lukeprog 05 February 2012 09:17:17PM 0 points [-]

Fair enough. My statement makes it sounds like we know more than we do. Do you like how I said it here, when I had more words to use?

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 04 February 2012 12:39:43AM 0 points [-]

It made me cringe as well but more because it will make people hug the opposite wall of the proverbial elevator, not because such methods are conclusively shown as impractical - http://decision.stanford.edu/.

Comment author: siodine 04 February 2012 12:15:53AM 0 points [-]

I think Ian Pollock more effectively got at what Luke is trying to communicate.