Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Futuristic Predictions as Consumable Goods - Less Wrong

24 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 10 April 2007 12:18AM

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

Comments (19)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 11 April 2007 08:27:55AM 1 point [-]

Not only that, but that section should also include a monetary deposit that the author forfeits if his predictions turn out to be false.

That I strongly disagree with. We don't want to discourage people from taking risks, we want them to improve with time. If there's money involved, then people will be far shyer about the rigour of the "failure section".

Ideally, we want people to take the most pride in saying "I was wrong before, now I'm better."

Stuart, and Ilkka, how about you guys go first, with your next paper? It is easy to say what other people should do in their papers.

Alas, not much call for that in mathematics - the failure section would be two lines: "if I made a math mistake in this paper, my results are wrong. If not, then not."

However, I am planning to write other papers where this would be relevant (next year, or even this one, hopefully). And I solemly swear in the sight of Blog and in the presence of this blogregation, that when I do so, I will include a failure section.

And the people here are invited to brutally skewer or mock me if I don't do so.

Fine print at the end of the contract: Joint papers with others are excluded if my co-writer really objects.

Comment author: gwern 06 January 2011 06:30:27PM 3 points [-]

However, I am planning to write other papers where this would be relevant (next year, or even this one, hopefully). And I solemly swear in the sight of Blog and in the presence of this blogregation, that when I do so, I will include a failure section.

Did you?

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 07 January 2011 04:34:02PM 1 point [-]

I did, in a paper that was rejected. The subsequent papers were not relevant (maths and biochemistry). But I will try and include this in the Oracle AI paper when it comes out.

Comment author: wnoise 07 January 2011 06:33:03PM 1 point [-]

I did, in a paper that was rejected.

And you didn't resubmit it to other journals?

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 07 January 2011 07:09:30PM 1 point [-]

It was rambling and obsolete :-)

Rewritting it was more trouble than it was worth; you can find it at www.neweuropeancentury.org/GodAI.pdf if you want.