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

wedrifid comments on SotW: Be Specific - Less Wrong

39 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 03 April 2012 06:11AM

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

Comments (306)

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

Comment author: Dmytry 07 April 2012 04:49:48AM 0 points [-]

It has plenty of scope to do so because CEV is not fully defined as of now.

The understatement of the year. CEV is vaguest crap ever with lowest hope of becoming less vague.

Comment author: wedrifid 07 April 2012 07:08:58AM 1 point [-]

with lowest hope of becoming less vague.

That's a rather significant claim.

Comment author: Dmytry 07 April 2012 07:16:18AM *  -1 points [-]

It's very uncommon to see crap this vague in development for such a long time by such a clever person, without it becoming less vague.

Comment author: wedrifid 07 April 2012 08:46:32AM *  1 point [-]

As far as I am aware this crap isn't in development. It isn't the highest research priority so the other SingInst researchers haven't been working on it much and Eliezer himself is mostly focused on writing a rationality book. Other things like decision theory are being worked on - which has involved replacing vague as crap TDT with less-vague UDT and UDT2.

I would like to see more work published on CEV. The most recent I am familiar with is this.

Comment author: orthonormal 07 April 2012 03:16:28PM 4 points [-]

replacing vague as crap TDT with less-vague UDT and UDT2

As I've figured out while writing the last few posts, TDT hasn't been explained well, but it is a genuinely formalizable theory. (You'll have to trust me until Part III or check the decision-theory mailing list.) But it's a different theory from ADT and UDT, and the latter ones are preferable.

Comment author: [deleted] 08 April 2012 03:11:05PM 0 points [-]

You mean you have something in mind about how to handle counterfactuals over logically impossible worlds, or simply “I'm not sure it can't be done”?

Comment author: orthonormal 08 April 2012 03:26:10PM 0 points [-]

I mean, I've written an algorithm (in the context of the tournament) which does what TDT should do (just as the algorithm in my last post does what CDT should do). The nice part about specifying the context so precisely is that I can dodge many of the hairy issues which come up in practice, and just show the essence of the decision theories.