= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
GabrielDuquette comments on Elevator pitches/responses for rationality / AI - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (68)
One of the most difficult arguments I've had making is convincing people that they can be more rational. Sometimes people have said that they're simply incapable of assigning numbers and probabilities to beliefs, even though they acknowledge that it's superior for decision making.
I have never seen this explained accessibly on LW.
This. I'm skeptical of almost every numerical probability estimate I hear unless the steps are outlined to me.
No joke intended, but how much more skeptical are you, percentage-wise, of numerical probability estimates than vague, natural language probability estimates? Please disguise your intuitive sense of your feelings as a form of math.
Ideally, deliver your answer in a C-3PO voice.
40 percent.
This may be one reason why people are reluctant to assign numbers to beliefs in the first place. People equate numbers with certainty and authority, whereas a probability is just a way of saying how uncertain you are about something.
When giving a number for a subjective probability, I often feel like it should be a two-dimensional quantity: probability and authority. The "authority" figure would be an estimate of "if you disagree with me now but we manage to come to an agreement in the next 5 minutes, what are the chances of me having to update my beliefs versus you?"
Techniques for probability estimates by Yvain is the best we have.