Activity Feed
I’ve been sleeping poorly in general lately. Who’s to say tonight’s sleep will be better?
I’ve been sleeping poorly in general lately. Who’s to say tonight’s sleep will be better? It may even get better because I work out today.
#5645·Dennis Hackethal, 18 days agoI want to go to the gym today but I didn’t sleep well last night.
I’ve been sleeping poorly in general lately. Who’s to say tonight’s sleep will be better?
#5652·Dennis Hackethal, 18 days agoBut this is the first time I’m doing a cut this aggressive for more than just a week. I’m approaching the two-week mark. I know eventually I won’t be able to maintain strength, but it would still be good to know where the cut-off point is, roughly.
Okay but if I go tomorrow and I do lose strength, I won’t know if it’s because I waited too long.
#5651·Dennis Hackethal, 18 days agoI’ve gone to the gym twice already during this cut and kept my strength each time, even hit PRs on some exercises. And last time I did this cut I also hit PRs.
But this is the first time I’m doing a cut this aggressive for more than just a week. I’m approaching the two-week mark. I know eventually I won’t be able to maintain strength, but it would still be good to know where the cut-off point is, roughly.
#5650·Dennis Hackethal, 18 days agoI’m running an experiment to see if I can keep my strength while on an aggressive cut. If I go to the gym today and get weaker numbers, I won’t know whether to attribute that to the cut or to poor sleep.
I’ve gone to the gym twice already during this cut and kept my strength each time, even hit PRs on some exercises. And last time I did this cut I also hit PRs.
#5645·Dennis Hackethal, 18 days agoI want to go to the gym today but I didn’t sleep well last night.
I’m running an experiment to see if I can keep my strength while on an aggressive cut. If I go to the gym today and get weaker numbers, I won’t know whether to attribute that to the cut or to poor sleep.
#5648·Dennis Hackethal, 18 days agoThat’s fine. It’s been 15 days since the last time I hit this muscle group. I’ve gone a month and still hit PRs.
That was at maintenance/slight surplus. Now I’m doing an aggressive cut at 1600 cals/day and the body has more reason to keep fat and shed muscle. So time may be of the essence.
That’s fine. It’s been 15 days since the last time I hit this muscle group. I’ve gone a month and still hit PRs.
#5645·Dennis Hackethal, 18 days agoI want to go to the gym today but I didn’t sleep well last night.
If I didn’t sleep well, I might not perform well.
I want to go to the gym today but I didn’t sleep well last night.
#5116·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months ago
should_adopt?andpending_criticismsare implemented in terms of each other. Doesn’t that cause an infinite regress?
No because the discussion graph is acyclic.
No because 1) there’s always a finite amount of deeply nested criticisms, and 2) the discussion graph is acyclic.
No because there’s always a finite amount of deeply nested criticisms.
#5117·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months agoNo because 1) there’s always a finite amount of deeply nested criticisms, and 2) the discussion graph is acyclic.
Bulk
Related Popper reading: ‘Preference for Theories and the Search for Truth’
Forum Rules
Veritula welcomes a wide range of discussion topics. Generally speaking, people have free speech here. Unpopular topics will not automatically get people banned. The goal of moderation is to preserve productive, truth-seeking discussion.
Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress is a bannable offense. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, harassment, brigading, rage baiting, public shaming, and persistent bad-faith argumentation or refusal to engage substantively.
Veritula takes intellectual property seriously and reserves the right to take down content that infringes on others’ intellectual property.
Veritula also reserves the right to take down obscene content such as pornography.
Serious instances of off-platform behavior that clearly would have violated these rules on-platform may result in removal.
Depending on the severity of an infraction, moderators may issue a warning, temporarily lock an account, or permanently ban the account.
Looking for loopholes in these rules, or abusing the letter to violate the spirit of these rules, is a bannable offense.
Moderation decisions are at the discretion of Veritula.
Users may appeal moderation decisions by contacting the moderators within a reasonable time after a decision. Appeals should explain why the decision was wrong. Appeals are reviewed at the moderators’ discretion. The same decision may be appealed only once.
Talks with moderators should remain respectful and constructive. Changes to these rules should be proposed by criticizing this idea before issues arise. Changes are generally not retroactive unless specified otherwise.
Site-wide terms apply as well.
Forum Rules
Veritula welcomes a wide range of discussion topics. Generally speaking, people have free speech here. Unpopular topics will not automatically get people banned. The goal of moderation is to preserve productive, truth-seeking discussion.
Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress is a bannable offense. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, harassment, brigading, rage baiting, public shaming, and persistent bad-faith argumentation or refusal to engage substantively.
Veritula takes intellectual property seriously and reserves the right to take down content that infringes on others’ intellectual property.
Veritula also reserves the right to take down obscene content such as pornography.
AI-generated content may be submitted, but only if disclosed prominently enough so a reasonable person can tell right away. Veritula is a place for genuine discussion and truth-seeking, so we’d prefer to avoid talking to meat proxies without realizing it. AI content is notoriously verbose – don’t flood discussions with it. In addition, it’s your responsibility to ensure that AI detectors give negative results for your content. Repeat submission of AI-generated content that is not disclosed and/or overly verbose is a bannable offense.
Serious instances of off-platform behavior that clearly would have violated these rules on-platform may result in removal.
Depending on the severity of an infraction, moderators may issue a warning, temporarily lock an account, or permanently ban the account.
Looking for loopholes in these rules, or abusing the letter to violate the spirit of these rules, is a bannable offense.
Moderation decisions are at the discretion of Veritula.
Users may appeal moderation decisions by contacting the moderators within a reasonable time after a decision. Appeals should explain why the decision was wrong. Appeals are reviewed at the moderators’ discretion. The same decision may be appealed only once.
Talks with moderators should remain respectful and constructive. Changes to these rules should be proposed by criticizing this idea before issues arise. Changes are generally not retroactive unless specified otherwise.
Site-wide terms apply as well.
#5511·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month agoForum Rules
Veritula welcomes a wide range of discussion topics. Generally speaking, people have free speech here. Unpopular topics will not automatically get people banned. The goal of moderation is to preserve productive, truth-seeking discussion.
Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress is a bannable offense. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, harassment, brigading, rage baiting, public shaming, and persistent bad-faith argumentation or refusal to engage substantively.
Veritula takes intellectual property seriously and reserves the right to take down content that infringes on others’ intellectual property.
Veritula also reserves the right to take down obscene content such as pornography.
Serious instances of off-platform behavior that clearly would have violated these rules on-platform may result in removal.
Depending on the severity of an infraction, moderators may issue a warning, temporarily lock an account, or permanently ban the account.
Looking for loopholes in these rules, or abusing the letter to violate the spirit of these rules, is a bannable offense.
Moderation decisions are at the discretion of Veritula.
Users may appeal moderation decisions by contacting the moderators within a reasonable time after a decision. Appeals should explain why the decision was wrong. Appeals are reviewed at the moderators’ discretion. The same decision may be appealed only once.
Talks with moderators should remain respectful and constructive. Changes to these rules should be proposed by criticizing this idea before issues arise. Changes are generally not retroactive unless specified otherwise.
Site-wide terms apply as well.
The rules should say whether AI-generated content is okay to submit or not.
#3069·Dennis HackethalOP revised 11 months agoMy critique of David Deutsch’s The Beginning of Infinity as a programmer. In short, his ‘hard to vary’ criterion at the core of his epistemology is fatally underspecified and impossible to apply.
Deutsch says that one should adopt explanations based on how hard they are to change without impacting their ability to explain what they claim to explain. The hardest-to-change explanation is the best and should be adopted. But he doesn’t say how to figure out which is hardest to change.
A decision-making method is a computational task. He says you haven’t understood a computational task if you can’t program it. He can’t program the steps for finding out how ‘hard to vary’ an explanation is, if only because those steps are underspecified. There are too many open questions.
So by his own yardstick, he hasn’t understood his epistemology.
You will find that and many more criticisms here: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hard-to-vary-or-hardly-usable
For posterity regarding the most recent bounty on this idea, ChatGPT made me this awesome illustration a while back for my post about the bounty on X:
Reflect new badge requirement
How Do Bounties Work?
Bounties let you invite criticism and reward high-quality contributions with real money.
Bounties are in beta. Expect things to break.
How do I participate?
Next, browse the list of bounties. Click a bounty’s dollar amount to view its page, review the bountied idea and the terms, and submit a criticism of that idea.
That’s it – you’re in.
How do I get paid?
The bounty owner reviews submissions for eligibility against his bounty terms.
To be eligible for a payout, all of the following must be true:
- Your submission is a direct criticism of the bountied idea.
- Your submission has no pending counter-criticisms by the deadline. (For temporary bounties, that’s when the review period ends; for standing bounties, it’s seven days after submission.)
- Your submission meets the bounty terms and the site-wide terms.
- You’ve connected a Stripe account in good standing before the deadline.
- You’ve not contributed funds to the bounty.
The bounty owner is never eligible to receive payouts from their own bounty.
Note that counter-criticisms are not constrained by the bounty-specific terms. Only direct criticisms of the bountied idea are.
How much will I get paid?
For temporary bounties, the amount is prorated among eligible participants based on contribution. For example, if there are ten eligible criticisms and you contributed two of them, you receive 20% of the amount when the bounty ends.
For standing bounties, amounts are assigned on a per-submission basis. For example, funders may indicate that they will pay a total of USD 100 for the first eligible submission, a total of USD 50 for the second eligible submission, and so on. Each eligible submission has its own payout date.
Fractions of cents are not paid out.
How do I run a bounty?
Click the megaphone button next to an idea (near the buttons to bookmark, archive, etc.).
Set a bounty amount and write clear terms describing the kinds of criticisms you’re willing to pay for. Then enter your credit-card details to authorize the amount plus a 5% bounty fee.
Your card is at most authorized, but not charged, when the bounty starts.
A temporary bounty typically runs for five to seven days, depending on your card’s authorization window. You may review submissions during the entire bounty period. Toward the end, a 24-hour grace period begins during which no new submissions can be made but you may continue your review. Reject any submissions that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted at the end of the review period and become eligible for payout. Your card is then charged the full authorization.
A standing bounty runs for as long as funds last. Each submission has its own seven-day review period. Again, reject any submissions that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted seven days after submission. Your card is then charged as indicated in your funding allocation.
If you reject all submissions, your card is never charged.
What’s the difference between a temporary and a standing bounty?
A temporary bounty has a fixed duration, typically between five and seven days. The bounty amount is prorated among eligible participants at the end. Standing bounties, on the other hand, don’t have a fixed duration; they run as long as funds last. Funds are paid out continuously and on a per-submission basis, as described above.
Temporary bounties are ideal when you have limited time and a smaller budget. Standing bounties are ideal for the long term with a larger budget. However, you can mix and match based on your own unique preferences and circumstances: for example, it’s possible to use a larger budget on a temporary bounty.
Can I fund an existing bounty?
Yes. Review the bounty terms. If you agree with them, click the ‘Add funding’ button on the bounty page and follow the next steps. At this point, your card is at most authorized but not charged.
Your card is charged for any submissions the bounty owner does not reject. If he rejects all submissions, your card is never charged.
Funders are never eligible to receive payouts from a bounty they funded.
Start a bounty today. Terms apply.
How Do Bounties Work?
Bounties let you invite criticism and reward high-quality contributions with real money.
Bounties are in beta. Expect things to break.
How do I participate?
Only users with a Beginner, Engager, and Defender badge can participate in bounties. Find a list of all badges and how to get them here.
To participate in a bounty, start by logging in or sign up.
Next, browse the list of bounties. Click a bounty’s dollar amount to view its page, review the bountied idea and the terms, and submit a criticism of that idea.
That’s it – you’re in.
How do I get paid?
The bounty owner reviews submissions for eligibility against his bounty terms.
To be eligible for a payout, all of the following must be true:
- Your submission is a direct criticism of the bountied idea.
- Your submission has no pending counter-criticisms by the deadline. (For temporary bounties, that’s when the review period ends; for standing bounties, it’s seven days after submission.)
- Your submission meets the bounty terms and the site-wide terms.
- You’ve connected a Stripe account in good standing before the deadline.
- You’ve not contributed funds to the bounty.
The bounty owner is never eligible to receive payouts from their own bounty.
Note that counter-criticisms are not constrained by the bounty-specific terms. Only direct criticisms of the bountied idea are.
How much will I get paid?
For temporary bounties, the amount is prorated among eligible participants based on contribution. For example, if there are ten eligible criticisms and you contributed two of them, you receive 20% of the amount when the bounty ends.
For standing bounties, amounts are assigned on a per-submission basis. For example, funders may indicate that they will pay a total of USD 100 for the first eligible submission, a total of USD 50 for the second eligible submission, and so on. Each eligible submission has its own payout date.
Fractions of cents are not paid out.
How do I run a bounty?
Click the megaphone button next to an idea (near the buttons to bookmark, archive, etc.).
Set a bounty amount and write clear terms describing the kinds of criticisms you’re willing to pay for. Then enter your credit-card details to authorize the amount plus a 5% bounty fee.
Your card is at most authorized, but not charged, when the bounty starts.
A temporary bounty typically runs for five to seven days, depending on your card’s authorization window. You may review submissions during the entire bounty period. Toward the end, a 24-hour grace period begins during which no new submissions can be made but you may continue your review. Reject any submissions that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted at the end of the review period and become eligible for payout. Your card is then charged the full authorization.
A standing bounty runs for as long as funds last. Each submission has its own seven-day review period. Again, reject any submissions that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted seven days after submission. Your card is then charged as indicated in your funding allocation.
If you reject all submissions, your card is never charged.
What’s the difference between a temporary and a standing bounty?
A temporary bounty has a fixed duration, typically between five and seven days. The bounty amount is prorated among eligible participants at the end. Standing bounties, on the other hand, don’t have a fixed duration; they run as long as funds last. Funds are paid out continuously and on a per-submission basis, as described above.
Temporary bounties are ideal when you have limited time and a smaller budget. Standing bounties are ideal for the long term with a larger budget. However, you can mix and match based on your own unique preferences and circumstances: for example, it’s possible to use a larger budget on a temporary bounty.
Can I fund an existing bounty?
Yes. Review the bounty terms. If you agree with them, click the ‘Add funding’ button on the bounty page and follow the next steps. At this point, your card is at most authorized but not charged.
Your card is charged for any submissions the bounty owner does not reject. If he rejects all submissions, your card is never charged.
Funders are never eligible to receive payouts from a bounty they funded.
Start a bounty today. Terms apply.
#3069·Dennis HackethalOP revised 11 months agoMy critique of David Deutsch’s The Beginning of Infinity as a programmer. In short, his ‘hard to vary’ criterion at the core of his epistemology is fatally underspecified and impossible to apply.
Deutsch says that one should adopt explanations based on how hard they are to change without impacting their ability to explain what they claim to explain. The hardest-to-change explanation is the best and should be adopted. But he doesn’t say how to figure out which is hardest to change.
A decision-making method is a computational task. He says you haven’t understood a computational task if you can’t program it. He can’t program the steps for finding out how ‘hard to vary’ an explanation is, if only because those steps are underspecified. There are too many open questions.
So by his own yardstick, he hasn’t understood his epistemology.
You will find that and many more criticisms here: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hard-to-vary-or-hardly-usable
I’ve just posted the following update on my article linked in the parent idea. The bounty can be closed, at least for now.
Update 2026-09-06
TL;DR: Computational underspecification may have been solved; HTV is still not a description of rationality or of the cause of progress.
Dirk Meulenbelt, Benjamin Davies, and I ran a Veritula bounty worth USD 3,600 to rehabilitate HTV with regard to its computational underspecification. Jad Elmourad came up with a simple idea:
- Prompt the user for two explanations.
- Prompt the user for variants of each.
- Compare the count of variants and rank accordingly (lower count = better).
Unfortunately, the integrity of the discussion of this idea can’t be warranted because of problematic participation in the bounty. As a result, it’s currently not known whether the idea has pending criticisms, ie, whether its advocacy is rational.
That said, the program runs. I’ve tried it out. It offers a simple alternative to the sliders above. It does seem to partially rehabilitate HTV specifically with regard to its previous computational underspecification. In other words, where proponents of HTV used to be unable to explain exactly how to determine how HTV an explanation is, they can now follow the steps above and answer accordingly. They can now rank explanations this way. That helps.
What the program also shows, maybe ironically, is that nobody actually follows those steps in real life. For example, scientists don’t count variants of theories like that. Deutsch is still right about the following: “Whenever a wide range of variant theories can account equally well for the phenomenon they are trying to explain, there is no reason to prefer one of them over the others, so advocating a particular one in preference to the others is irrational.” (BoI chapter 1; also, the ‘grass cure’ from FoR comes to mind as an example.) So when a theory is easy to vary in this sense, that does indeed mean we can’t form a rational preference for one of the variants, at least not without additional information. But that doesn’t mean all preference formation involves theories being hard to vary.
What scientists actually do is criticize a theory for being ‘easy to vary’ (they’d just call it ‘arbitrary’), reject it, and look for a different one. They wouldn’t care to rank theories this way. And they’d use HTV as only one mode of criticism among many. It’s not the core of rationality and progress; again, not all problems of preference formation can be reduced to having too many variants.
Philosophers don’t rank theories this way either. I don’t recall a single instance in BoI where Deutsch counts variants and justifies a preference that way. Instead, he lists and addresses criticisms. He follows the Veritula method.
Also, one would only enter variants into the program that have already survived criticism. So then the question is how scientists tell whether an idea has survived criticism. And there the answer is still the Veritula method. So the program could maybe be incorporated into Veritula as an additional step. But again, it’s not needed if ETV is simply one kind of criticism among many, with no ranking.
To be clear, that isn’t a criticism of the program – the bounty specifically asked for the ranking. Here, I’m only exploring the wider implications if the program can be advocated rationally. And the answer is: the computational underspecification is then solved, but HTV is still not a description of rationality or of the cause of progress. That idea, as I just phrased it, can be adopted rationally at the time of writing, and we can move forward accordingly.
#5609·Jad Elmourad revised 24 days agoA simple implementation of hard-to-vary
This is my submission for Veritula's bounty for Idea #3069, which asks for an executable implementation that can compare arbitrary English explanations by how hard they are to vary.
Code: hard-to-vary/htv.py at 9da0ddd
I've implemented the approach as a small interactive program. It takes arbitrary explanations supplied by the user, collects working variations of each, and ranks the explanations by hardness to vary.
I think hard-to-vary can be implemented more simply than the approaches considered in Dennis's blog, Hard to Vary or Hardly Usable?. The basic idea I'm using is this: if an explanation is harder to vary, there should be fewer ways of changing it while still having it explain what it's supposed to explain.
The program starts by asking the user what question they're trying to answer and then asks for a list of proposed explanations. It goes through each explanation one at a time and asks the user to come up with variations of it that would still work as explanations. The user can enter as many as they can find, then move on to the next explanation.
Variations can either be entered individually or parameterized using notation like
<X>and<Y>. For example,<X> kg of grass mixed with <Y> kg of wheat cures the diseasecan represent a whole family of variations. The user can either enter how many working values or combinations the parameters have, including an infinite number, or enumerate them and let the program count. This avoids requiring the user to manually enter every member of a family of variations.The user can also review and revise their inputs before the final ranking by adding, editing, or deleting explanations and variations.
Finally, the program counts the working variations and ranks the explanations. Fewer working variations means harder to vary, while equal numbers mean equally hard to vary. So if explanation A has two working variations and explanation B has five, A is harder to vary than B.
Infinite variations need a little more information. If two explanations both have infinitely many working variations, the program first compares how many independently variable parameters have infinitely many possible values. Fewer infinitely-variable parameters means harder to vary. If that's also equal, it compares the remaining finite parts of the variations. This lets the program distinguish, for example, between an explanation with one unconstrained infinite parameter and another with two.
An example
I'll use Deutsch's example from Chapter 1, “The Reach of Explanations,” of The Beginning of Infinity: Why do seasons occur?
One explanation is the story of Persephone. Hades, god of the underworld, kidnaps Persephone. Her mother Demeter eventually negotiates her release under an arrangement that requires Persephone to return to Hades once a year. Whenever Persephone is away, Demeter becomes sad and makes the world cold and bleak.
Deutsch's point is that we can change many of the details of this explanation while still accounting for the same observations. For example, I might try variations like:
- Persephone escapes instead of being released under an agreement.
- Something other than a magic seed compels her to return.
- Some other arrangement causes Persephone to return annually instead of a marriage contract.
The details have changed, but the story can still be made to explain the seasonal cycle. Suppose I find three such variations.
Now I try the explanation involving Earth's axial tilt. Here the details are much more constrained by what we're trying to explain. Changing the geometry substantially changes what the theory predicts about the seasons. Suppose I only find one working variation.
The program therefore ranks axial tilt as harder to vary: one working variation versus three. That's the entire comparison procedure.
How I understand Dennis's criticism
I don't understand Dennis as claiming that Deutsch simply gets the Persephone example wrong. The issue in the blog is how we get from examples like this, where we seem to have an intuition that one explanation is harder to vary, to a sufficiently specified procedure that could compare explanations in general.
Dennis initially explores numerical quality scores, but that immediately creates problems. Why should one explanation have a score of 500 rather than 550? Why choose that scale? How do criticisms affect the score? How do criticisms of criticisms affect it? I agree with Dennis that these choices look arbitrary.
He eventually gets rid of the quality scores entirely. Instead of trying to measure the quality of an idea, his program keeps track of pending criticisms. His proposed rule becomes: adopt ideas without pending criticisms and reject ideas that have them.
There's something important about how that system works, though. The program doesn't generate criticisms itself; people do. And that's intentional: Dennis says "I’m not looking to formalize or automate creativity as a whole". Creative input can come from users while the program handles the non-creative part of the process. I agree that you can have a rational decision-making process while outsourcing the creative part to the user.
I just don't see why we can't do the same thing with HTV. Let the user come up with variations and say which ones they think still work. The program doesn't need to understand the explanation or come up with the variations itself. It keeps track of the variations and compares the counts.
This doesn't seem fundamentally different from Dennis letting the user tell his program that something is a criticism. In fact, in the blog he explicitly avoids having the program figure out whether a comment is really a criticism: the user checks a box saying that it is. So in my program the user is supplying a working variation; in his, the user is supplying a criticism. In both cases the user is providing the part that requires understanding and judgment, and the program does something simple with that input.
It also means I don't need the quality scores Dennis runs into trouble with. I don't need to decide how many points axial tilt gets compared with Persephone. I'm just asking: how many ways have we actually found to change each explanation while still having it work?
But isn't this subjective?
One criticism Dennis quotes is:
“Also, isn’t the difficulty of changing an explanation at least partly a property not of the explanation itself but of whoever is trying to change it? If I’m having difficulty changing it, maybe that’s because I lack imagination. Or maybe I’m just new to that field and an expert could easily change it.”
I think this is true. I just don't think it's a problem specific to HTV.
Imagine I can't think of any working variations of an explanation, but an expert can immediately think of five. Then yes, our results will be different. But isn't that also what happens with criticism? I might look at an idea and fail to see anything wrong with it while someone who knows much more about the subject immediately sees a serious criticism.
The same goes for participation. An idea on Veritula might have zero pending criticisms simply because hardly anyone has tried to criticize it. That doesn't mean there are literally no criticisms of it. Someone could find one tomorrow. Dennis's answer in the blog is basically that if this bothers you, try to find a criticism yourself. If you can't find one, why not adopt the idea?
I think HTV can work the same way. Zero working variations doesn't mean that we've somehow proven there are no possible variations. It means we haven't found one. If you think the explanation is actually easy to vary, try to come up with a variation that still works.
So yes, the result depends on the knowledge and creativity of the person using the program. But I think rational decision-making is always going to depend on what criticisms, arguments, alternatives, etc. a person is actually aware of. I don't see how Veritula escapes that either.
What about human judgment?
There's another obvious question: who decides whether a variation actually works?
For this program, the user does. I don't think we can get rid of that kind of human judgment, at least until we get AGI. Two people can disagree about whether a variation still explains the thing we're trying to explain. They can also disagree about whether two variations are really different or are basically the same variation stated twice.
Again, I think Veritula has the same underlying issue. People still have to decide whether something really is a criticism, whether a countercriticism actually answers it, whether two criticisms are redundant, and so on. Dennis's program can keep track of the structure, but the structure only means something if those judgments make sense.
Take an extreme case. If a malicious moderator rejects every good criticism of an idea and accepts nonsense countercriticisms, the idea could end up showing
0 pending criticisms. I obviously shouldn't look at the0and conclude that the idea is rational to adopt. I'd want to read what happened and decide whether I agree with it.I don't mean this as a criticism specific to Veritula. I think it's just a limit of this kind of approach. At some point people have to make judgments, and people can disagree about them. Ultimately everyone is their own moderator when it comes to their own decision-making. I have to decide which arguments I accept, which criticisms I think have been answered, and so on.
The same is true with my HTV program. If someone gives me a ranking based on ten supposed working variations, I don't have to accept the ranking blindly. I can look at the ten variations and decide that five don't really work and three others are basically duplicates. My result would then be different.
I'm fine with that. I don't think the goal of either program should be to somehow remove judgment from rational thinking. The program gives us a procedure for what to do with the judgments we've made.
What does the program actually contribute?
Dennis writes:
“We can’t just outsource everything to the user – the app has to do some things or it has no value.”
This was actually the part of the blog that made me think about Veritula itself. What is Veritula doing, and what is it outsourcing?
It outsources the interesting creative part to people. People come up with the ideas. People come up with the criticisms. The user can even tell the program whether something they've written is a criticism by checking a box. The program then keeps track of the structure and tells us how many criticisms are pending.
My program is doing something similar, except with variations. People come up with the explanations and the working variations. The program keeps track of them, counts them, and ranks the explanations.
So I don't think I'm outsourcing everything to the user any more than Veritula is. I'm outsourcing the part that requires creativity and judgment. The actual decision rule is implemented in the program.
For Veritula, that rule ultimately depends on whether there are pending criticisms. For my program, it depends on the number of working variations: fewer working variations means harder to vary.
Where I disagree with the blog
I agree with Dennis that the quality sliders in the blog don't work. I also agree with his decision to let users supply the creative input rather than expecting the program to generate it.
Where I disagree is that I think once we allow this same freedom for HTV, we can construct a similarly simple program for it. The user comes up with explanations and tries to vary them while keeping them working. The program counts the working variations and ranks the explanations.
There 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.
I don't think either program solves those problems, and I don't think it needs to. That's the part people do.
The integrity of the discussion branches off of this idea and its siblings is questionable due to problematic participation in a bounty. Labels around pending criticisms and battle-tested may be not be accurate.
#5075·Tyler MillsOP revised 3 months agoAssuming qualia are classical, there is nothing stopping every step in the computation comprising them from being measured, like any computation. Then, nothing is stopping that recording/program from being rerun.
This is true, but assumes that "qualiation" still occurs when each subsequent state is pre-existing and determined. Do we know this? What if qualiation somehow depends on the (computational) indeterminacy of the subsequent states..?
#5623·Jad Elmourad, 24 days agoOne can’t agree to a rule, immediately break it, get an unfair advantage, hope I won’t notice, and then complain when I do.
I don't accept the characterization that I knowingly violated the rule and hoped you wouldn't notice. That wasn't my state of mind. More on this in #5622.
Veritula discussion trees can’t accurately reflect problematic vs unproblematic ideas when unreasonable people are involved, see #5624. Submitting this as a fix. Jad agrees to terms, breaks them, then wants to argue the purpose and meaning of them. That’s arbitrary, ie the opposite of reason and Veritula. He will no doubt claim he was just trying to follow the Veritula method of addressing criticisms, but the effect is that he’s turning Veritula on its head in the process. There’s no point discussing with people like him.
#5622·Jad Elmourad, 24 days agoBut why not raise that before agreeing to a rule he took issue with? Why accept the risk of disqualification instead?
This is a fair point, like I conceded in #5613: "We also agreed that in the future, discussions like this about the terms ought to be brought up at the beginning rather than after the fact."
And I definitely learned a lesson: to hash things out before if I see any potential conflict.
If you're curious for some more details about what happened here, I would say I got excited about getting my idea out as fast as possible and hearing criticisms. I had noticed the potential conflict about AI use, and I had marked it in my head as something we might have to discuss eventually, but I didn't see that point as arriving until at least the submission seemed to be surviving the criticisms. So when you brought it up and asked whether I was using AI, I immediately said yes.
Veritula discussion trees can’t accurately reflect problematic vs unproblematic ideas when unreasonable people are involved, see #5624. Submitting this as a fix. Jad agrees to terms, breaks them, then wants to argue the purpose and meaning of them. That’s arbitrary, ie the opposite of reason and Veritula. He will no doubt claim he was just trying to follow the Veritula method of addressing criticisms, but the effect is that he’s turning Veritula on its head in the process. There’s no point discussing with people like him.