= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
khafra comments on Willing gamblers, spherical cows, and AIs - 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 (40)
Do fish think in terms of expected value? Of course not. Evolutions make bets, and they can't think at all. Refactored Agency is a valuable tool--anything that can be usefully as a goal-seeking process with uncertain knowledge can also be modeled usefully as making bets. How useful is it to view arbitrary things through different models? Well, Will Newsome makes a practice of it. So, it's probably good for having insights, but caveat emptor.
The more complete the models describe the underlying phenomenon, the more isomorphic all models should be (in their Occamian formulation), until eventually we're only exchanging variable names.
Yes; to check your visual acuity, you block off one eye, then open that one and block the other. To check (and improve) your conceptual acuity, you block off everything that isn't an agent, then you block of everything that isn't an algorithm, then you block of everything that isn't an institution, etc.
Unless you can hypercompute, in which case that's probably not a useful heuristic.