Activity
#5536·Dennis HackethalOP, about 17 hours agoThere are still all the normal problems of human knowledge: maybe I missed a variation, maybe I accepted a bad one, maybe someone else would judge things differently. But those same problems exist when we come up with and judge criticisms.
That’s true, but it isn’t clear how criticisms fit into the program as proposed. The BoI chapter 1 glossary (p. 31) defines:
Good/bad explanation An explanation that is hard/easy to vary while
still accounting for what it purports to account for.The program currently has no way to tell, neither automatically nor through human input, whether a variation of an explanation still accounts for what it purports to account for. One could run the program again with corrected inputs but as I noted in #5533, that approach won’t scale.
I think the program already gets this through human input.
The prompt isn't asking the user to enter arbitrary changes. It specifically asks:
“Enter variations of this explanation that would still work to explain the same thing.”
So by entering a variation, the user is making the judgment that it still accounts for what the original explanation was supposed to account for. That's intentionally a human judgment, just like the other judgments I've discussed in #5553.
If the user later changes their mind about one of those judgments, then yes, the current minimal CLI requires them to run it again with the corrected input. I agree that wouldn't be good UX for a full application, but that's not what I'm trying to build here. Adding the ability to add, edit, or delete variations and immediately recalculate the ranking is straightforward and doesn't change the decision procedure being demonstrated.