Annoyance comments on Go Forth and Create the Art! - Less Wrong

38 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 23 April 2009 01:37AM

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

Comments (104)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: thomblake 23 April 2009 04:00:38PM 1 point [-]

Both of these things mean that we're assessing this material on a different basis than demonstrated efficacy.

Indeed - that seems to me like a problem. I am oft reminded of the unemployment worker in History of the World: Part I... "Occupation?" "Did you create an AI last week?" "Did you try to create an AI last week?"

Of course, that's not the end of the story, and nobody would expect a job like that to be the sort of thing you can just do. But without demonstrated efficacy, what's the difference between this "Art" and pseudoscience?

For an art of rationality to even mean anything, it must have predictable, demonstrable results.

Comment author: Annoyance 23 April 2009 06:28:28PM 0 points [-]

I agree with everything in your post except the last sentence. That's what a science must have to be meaningful.

What I want to know is why there's so little interest in developing a science of rationality.