You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.
Comment author:Karmakaiser
08 November 2011 02:43:50PM
2 points
[-]
If lukeprog does not use the word rationality in a post, is it rational? I suppose that depends on what you mean when you say rationality. If by rationality do you mean a lukeprog post that would, if read aloud, produce acoustic vibrations in the air that an intelligent agent would concede as rational, or do you mean the brainstate invoked in an agent while it is deliberately maximizing expected utility?
Comment author:Grognor
07 November 2011 10:33:41PM
3 points
[-]
I really like Spencer Greenberg's material. A+ stuff, for sure.
No surprise, though, since he's always linking to Less Wrong and has clear, admitted influence from Eliezer Yudkowsky.
Comment author:spencerg
11 November 2011 03:19:51AM
1 point
[-]
Thank you for pointing that out, it would have been better if I had spoken more carefully. I definitely don't think that uncertainty is in the territory. Please interpret "there is great uncertainty in X" as "our models of X produce very uncertain predictions."
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (15)
The talk title is Probability, not Rationality.
Gack! Fixed.
Perhaps it was a Freudian slip?
If the post's title didn't have the word 'rationality' in it, how would you know whether it had anything to do with rationality?
How is that connected with paper-machine's comment?
Edit: Uhh... it's an honest question.
If lukeprog does not use the word rationality in a post, is it rational? I suppose that depends on what you mean when you say rationality. If by rationality do you mean a lukeprog post that would, if read aloud, produce acoustic vibrations in the air that an intelligent agent would concede as rational, or do you mean the brainstate invoked in an agent while it is deliberately maximizing expected utility?
I understand neither head nor tail of this comment.
I'm re-reading A Human's Guide to Words and was just making a joke based on this
EDIT: Because, as Discworld taught me, it's not a good joke unless you need footnotes to explain it.
I thought it was funny.
I really like Spencer Greenberg's material. A+ stuff, for sure. No surprise, though, since he's always linking to Less Wrong and has clear, admitted influence from Eliezer Yudkowsky.
A clear exposition of the same material is an excellent thing - especially if it's less distressing to newcomers.
I found it incredibly annoying that he seems to think that uncertainty is in the territory.
Thank you for pointing that out, it would have been better if I had spoken more carefully. I definitely don't think that uncertainty is in the territory. Please interpret "there is great uncertainty in X" as "our models of X produce very uncertain predictions."
Ok, I'm glad you interpreted my comment as constructive criticism. Thanks for your efforts!
What exactly is TedX?