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.

XiXiDu comments on [Link] Better results by changing Bayes’ theorem - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: XiXiDu 09 March 2012 07:38PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (17)
Tags: bayes

Comments (17)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: XiXiDu 12 March 2012 07:37:48PM 0 points [-]

Hacker News discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3693447

I should have posted it over at Hacker News and get +103 karma instead of -1 :-)

Comment author: gwern 12 March 2012 08:00:35PM 0 points [-]

Yep. It's hard or impossible to know in advance what will catch fire, so the safest thing is to just post things to LW, Hacker News, and a relevant subreddit. I'm usually too lazy to.

Comment author: wedrifid 13 March 2012 06:08:04AM -1 points [-]

I should have posted it over at Hacker News and get +103 karma instead of -1 :-)

You could have got positive karma here too if you didn't present it incorrectly as a challenge to:

If it ever turns out that Bayes fails - receives systematically lower rewards on some problem, relative to a superior alternative, in virtue of its mere decisions - then Bayes has to go out the window.

-- Eliezer Yudkowsky, Newcomb's Problem and Regret of Rationality

Comment author: XiXiDu 13 March 2012 09:17:39AM 1 point [-]

You could have got positive karma here too if you didn't present it incorrectly as a challenge to...

As a "challenge to"? I incorrectly assumed that it is a good example in support of something Eliezer said, namely that you choose the winning way and not your favorite heuristic.

Comment author: wedrifid 14 March 2012 01:24:14AM -1 points [-]

As a "challenge to"? I incorrectly assumed that it is a good example in support of something Eliezer said, namely that you choose the winning way and not your favorite heuristic.

I suppose it would actually be a support of Eliezer's 'choose the winning way' theme while simultaneously undermining everything he said about probability theory.

Either way, it is the incorrect framing not just the location that dampened reception here.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit