matt comments on Bad reasons for a rationalist to lose - Less Wrong

30 Post author: matt 18 May 2009 10:57PM

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

Comments (73)

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

Comment author: matt 19 May 2009 10:15:36PM 2 points [-]

despite criticizing EY for "needing" things that would merely be supercool, matt lists a large number of things that would also be merely supercool

Yah, good point - those are meant to be discussion points, but that's not really very clear as written. I don't mean to imply that we need everything in the lists, but to characterize the sort of thing we should be looking for.

Second, matt seemed to miss why EY was asking for all of that information

No, I don't think that's right. Eliezer is presenting as needful lots of stuff that he's just not going to get. That seems to be leading him not to try anything until he finds something that passes through his very tight filter. I'm claiming that the relevant filter should be built on expected utility, and that there is pretty good information available (most of the stuff in the lists can at least be estimated with little time invested) that would lead him to try more hacks than the none likely to pass his filter.

EY provided very good reasons why he should be skeptical of just trying every neato trick

I'm very not suggesting that you should try "every neato trick". I am suggesting that high expected utility is a better filter than robust scientific research. If you have robust research available you should use it. When you don't, have a look through my lists and see whether it's worth trying something anyway. You might manage a win.