Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: curi 08 December 2017 11:02:59AM *  0 points [-]

If they wanna convince anyone it isn't using domain-specific knowledge created by the programmers, why don't they demonstrate it in the straightforward way? Show results in 3 separate domains. But they can't.

If it really has nothing domain specific, why can't it work with ANY domain?

Comment author: Subsumed 08 December 2017 12:03:43PM 0 points [-]

I feel the term "domain" is doing a lot of work in these replies. Define domain, what is the size limit of a domain? Might all of reality be a domain and thus a domain-specific algorithm be sufficient for anything of interest?

Comment author: Fallibilist 06 December 2017 11:41:49PM *  0 points [-]

In CR, knowledge is information which solves a problem. CR criticizes the justified-true-belief idea of knowledge. Knowledge cannot be justified, or shown to be certain, but this doesn't matter for if it solves a problem, it is useful. Justification is problematic because it is ultimately authoritarian. It requires that you have some base, which itself cannot be justified except by an appeal to authority, such as the authority of the senses or the authority of self-evidence, or such like. We cannot be certain of knowledge because we cannot say if an error will be exposed in the future. This view is contrary to most people's intuition and for this reason they can easily misunderstand the CR view, which commonly happens.

CR accepts something as knowledge which solves a problem if it has no known criticisms. Such knowledge is currently unproblematic but may become so in the future if an error is found.

Critical rationalists are fallibilists: they don't look for justification, they try to find error and they accept anything they cannot find an error in. Fallibilists, then, expose their knowledge to tough criticism. Contrary to popular opinion, they are not wish-washy, hedging, or uncertain. They often have strong opinions.

Comment author: Subsumed 07 December 2017 09:03:19AM 0 points [-]

Has a dog that learns to open a box to get access to a food item not created knowledge according to this definition? What about a human child that has learned the same?

Comment author: Subsumed 06 December 2017 10:25:40PM 0 points [-]

How is knowledge defined in CR?

Comment author: gwern 02 May 2016 12:13:11AM 8 points [-]

Everything is heritable:

Politics/religion:

AI:

Statistics/meta-science:

Psychology/biology:

Technology:

Economics:

Comment author: Subsumed 04 May 2016 11:48:55AM 4 points [-]

Have you written up somewhere how you stay organized, what software you use, especially with regards to reference management, text editors and works in progress?

Comment author: Subsumed 03 June 2011 01:36:51PM 2 points [-]

A brain, rational or not, can produce the "terminal value" state (or output, or qualia?) when presented with the habitat or biodiversity concepts. This can be independent of their instrumental value, which, on average, probably diminishes with technological progress. But it's also easy to imagine cases where the instrumental value of nature increases as our ability to understand and manipulate it grows.

Comment author: Miller 03 May 2011 07:01:49PM 2 points [-]

This is a simple model and as such might make a decent prior if you know nothing else. In the Al Qaeda case we probably know substantially more than (size, age) for reasoning about it.

Comment author: Subsumed 03 May 2011 07:21:47PM 2 points [-]

Do we know how to reason about that other information?

Comment author: Subsumed 09 April 2011 01:43:03PM 2 points [-]

I really like this sieve approach. I feel a big improvement would be to show the output of the sieve as two boxes (red and blue) as well to help emphasize visually just how many false+ pass through and the relative size of false+ to all that pass through.

Comment author: Subsumed 08 February 2011 11:24:35PM 3 points [-]

There are lots of things I feel others ought to know (because after I knew them I felt I understood the world a lot better than before) but not many fall under procedural knowledge. Computer programming is one thing I really value having learned, mostly for non-procedural reasons (clarifies thinking, adds a large useful set of analogies etc.) which has also proved practically useful (e.g. writing scripts for repetitive things and understanding computer errors).

Another thing I've just recalled: If you run out of gas somewhere you can call a cab and ask the driver to bring a can of gas with him/her (this applies in Iceland at least, YMMV).

Comment author: Subsumed 23 January 2011 03:07:22AM 4 points [-]

Reading the part about breathing reducing attention during reading caused me to pay attention to my breathing while reading which reduced my attention, suggesting that breathing during reading reduces attention. Very clever, Mr. Wenger! As JoshuaZ points out, breathing seems unnoticed when one isn't actively thinking about it.

One also has to take into account the probability that this training has negative consequences, which, knowing the effects of hypoxia on neurons, is not negligible.

Comment author: Subsumed 20 January 2011 07:59:27PM 18 points [-]

Hi, I'm new.

View more: Next