= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
buybuydandavis comments on Open thread, Jul. 04 - Jul. 10, 2016 - 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 (80)
There's a fair bit on decision theory and on bayesean thinking, both of which are instrumental rationality. There's not much on heuristics or how to deal with limited capacity. Perhaps intentionally - it's hard to be rigorous on those topics.
Also, I think there's an (unstated, and that should be fixed and the topic debated) belief that instrumental rationality without epistemic rationality is either useless or harmful. Certainly thta's the FAI argument, and there's no reason to believe it wouldn't apply to humans. As such, a focus on epistemic rationality first is the correct approach.
That is, don't try to improve your ability to meet goals unless you're very confident in those goals.
I think some people agree with that, but I consider it backwards.
I'll take winning over accurately predicting. Winning is the desired end; accurate prediction is a means, and not the only one.
Umm, that's what I'm trying to say. If you don't know what "winning" is, you don't know whether your accurate predictions help you win or not.
Were you? I'm not seeing what you're saying align with what I said.
On a perhaps related issue, you don't need to know what winning is, to win.
Competence without comprehension, a la Dennett.
Sure, but that's luck, not rationality.