I think you meant "explied postrationality."
Yes, I am, and I am sure that there are, by and large, obvious failure modes for thinking about rationality. However, it's not obvious that a post like this is useful, i.e., an epistemically useful post that you could find useful.
I like the idea of using a "high level" section of a post, but it's hard to do any better than writing a bunch of summaries. It's just confusing to me about that.
There's a lot to explain here, but I hope that some of this can be discussed together. For example, I didn't like the term "high level" wh
...(I don't care if they've been used by people like me, but anyone probably ought to have noticed in the past)
Do you know if anyone has done this? I'm pretty sure your comment was accepted, and it seems to me. By contrast, gjm's post and mine (related to Eliezer's post on the issue of how much to tru
...This is unsettling
So if you're going to try to learn to speak Spanish (or to be French) and so on, you really need a lot to know basic language (to speak the language properly) and have been doing it for years or so.
I would bet that you could come up with a reasonably clear language for some topics that this language
...I think the general setup should be "all posts" at least, since it's so straightforward to look at a post separately from a list of each concept.
I think I have a specific concept for something I'm trying to say, but I didn't know how to describe that concept.
I think I've solved the problem
I see nothing to these that would say that they're all false (or, that's more, false than not).
There's no reason to expect that they're all false.
I find this bit much more distracting than the previous two, which strikes me as rather good. The worst part is the third part, which gives people a way of seeing the "hey, what's going on?" and the lack of obvious structure.
It is easy to think of that as "utility function", but it doesn't mean that utility functions are always zero. So, we could have utility functions that make people behave like perfect utility function maximizers.
The question around scope insensitivity might play out (to us) as something like an agen
...Eliezer,
This is indeed interesting and informative - I can't see anything else on that thread except the title. How does Eliezer link to this "thing" and this "thing" when he says that it's a “boring idea”?
You've covered a lot of things in my writing and I enjoy this. Thanks for what you've done.
"Makes sense, and humans don't have any other simple agents. We have them out in the wild, we have them out in the wild, we don't have them out in the wild . .
This comes from a post that makes reference to a real life case that doesn't use the word "emotion."