= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
taygetea comments on Why CFAR? The view from 2015 - 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 (63)
I could very well be in the grip of the same problem (and I'd think the same if I was), but it looks like CFAR's methods are antifragile to this sort of failure. Especially considering the metaethical generality and well-executed distancing from LW in CFAR's content.
What does that mean?
book
Basically, systems that can improve from damage.
The question isn't about what the word means in general but in what way CFAR's methods are supposedly antifragile.
I know what the word means, kinda (Taleb isn't particularly coherent). I don't understand how CFAR's methods can improve from damage.