= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
dthunt comments on Expected Creative Surprises - 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 (41)
OK, I'll play.
Given the EY here in both scenarios is the active agent (EY, in flesh, and the RYK box, consisting of a synthetic EY guessing at what K does, and a system choosingly randomly based on EY-over-K predictions what the box does next)...
Yes. "never" is a strong word here. Assume when he says "never" he means, "EY thinks it is really unlikely for K to do".
In other words, when EY sees EY-playing-K-but-Selecting-Moves-Randomly-in-proportion-with-predictions-of-K, and observes RYK has played an unexpected/unlikely move, EY concludes that RYK has probably picked a move that is evaluated to be less fit than some other move. RYK is a worse player than EY because RYK is not picking its best options. RYK is the gambler that sometimes takes the sucker bet.
Yes, the sane meaning for “never” is ‘negligibly often’... but then again the sane meaning for “sometimes” is ‘non-negligibly often’.
I do get his point, but I think that sentence in particular is paradoxical. Had he said “rarely” and “rarely” it'd be OK, but “sometimes” and “never”...