Activity Feed
It’s because of text-wrap: pretty;
Chromium renders it properly. Desktop and mobile Safari doesn’t.
How to Be Rational: https://x.com/dchackethal/status/2091272979791659054
#5334·Martin Thaulow, 10 days agoRelated: Lying reduces conflict - in the short term.
I prefer the term macro economists use: Borrowing from the future. It can work out in the long term, if the future cooperates, for instance it is possible to get away with a lie. But it’s always a very risky gamble, since the future is very uncertain, and therefore it is not a good strategy.
On tangent to this, I think consequentialism is not a theory of ethics at all, it’s just borrowing from the future as well. Anchoring moral action to predicted (prophecied) consequences is nothing more than an attempt to sidestep ethical deliberation completely.
In other words, it is evil.
#4977·Tyler Mills, 3 months agoAre pacifism, socialism and compromise all short-termist?
Pacifism reduces casualties --- in the short term.
Socialism reduces poverty --- in the short term.
Compromise reduces disappointment --- in the short term.
Related: Lying reduces conflict - in the short term.
I prefer the term macro economists use: Borrowing from the future. It can work out in the long term, if the future cooperates, for instance it is possible to get away with a lie. But it’s always a very risky gamble, since the future is very uncertain, and therefore it is not a good strategy.
#5332·Dennis HackethalOP, 10 days agoBrett says this can’t be a fully specified criterion of rationality because it’s not an AGI.
As I wrote to him in response, rationality and creativity are different things. They’re related, and there’s overlap, but you don’t need to code creativity to code rational preference formation. You can outsource creative input to the user, as programs usually do.
#4902·Dennis HackethalOP revised 4 months agoRational Decision-Making
Expanding on #2112…
If an idea, as written, has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.
If an idea, as written, does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?
Or, simplified:
It is rational to adopt only those ideas which, as written, don’t have pending criticisms, and to reject ideas that do.
Brett says this can’t be a fully specified criterion of rationality because it’s not an AGI.
#5330·Dennis HackethalOP, 10 days agoBrett Hall says Newtonian physics has pending criticisms but we can adopt it rationally in many situations so my criterion of rationality must be false.
#4902·Dennis HackethalOP revised 4 months agoRational Decision-Making
Expanding on #2112…
If an idea, as written, has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.
If an idea, as written, does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?
Or, simplified:
It is rational to adopt only those ideas which, as written, don’t have pending criticisms, and to reject ideas that do.
Brett Hall says Newtonian physics has pending criticisms but we can adopt it rationally in many situations so my criterion of rationality must be false.
#5328·Dennis HackethalOP, 10 days agoBrett Hall says this basically comes down to getting the “best explanation” but is “not quite right”.
Brett is confused about HTV. It says nothing about pending criticisms. As I replied to him, it says to prefer, “between rival theories at a given state of a discussion, those we find the most difficult to change without breaking their ability to explain what they purport to explain.”
#4902·Dennis HackethalOP revised 4 months agoRational Decision-Making
Expanding on #2112…
If an idea, as written, has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.
If an idea, as written, does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?
Or, simplified:
It is rational to adopt only those ideas which, as written, don’t have pending criticisms, and to reject ideas that do.
Brett Hall says this basically comes down to getting the “best explanation” but is “not quite right”.
#5325·Dennis HackethalOP, 10 days agoBrett Hall responds to the contradiction between HTV and ‘if you can’t program it, you haven’t understood it’: https://x.com/ToKTeacher/status/2090780593739243793
He agrees we can’t program HTV but says even if we don’t know how or why an explanation is HTV, we still know that it’s HTV.
The blog post already sidesteps that issue by granting the user the ability to input some HTV score without having to give any reasoning. That still leads to all sorts of trouble.
#5325·Dennis HackethalOP, 10 days agoBrett Hall responds to the contradiction between HTV and ‘if you can’t program it, you haven’t understood it’: https://x.com/ToKTeacher/status/2090780593739243793
He agrees we can’t program HTV but says even if we don’t know how or why an explanation is HTV, we still know that it’s HTV.
Translation: ‘trust me bro’
It’s just vibes.
#3069·Dennis HackethalOP revised 10 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
Brett Hall responds to the contradiction between HTV and ‘if you can’t program it, you haven’t understood it’: https://x.com/ToKTeacher/status/2090780593739243793
He agrees we can’t program HTV but says even if we don’t know how or why an explanation is HTV, we still know that it’s HTV.
#5311·Tyler MillsOP, 12 days agoAh, I marked my agreement in #5292 a criticism to neutralize yours, since I corrected #5293. But I should have revised it to additionally have the existing criticism no longer apply. I'll make a new revision with that change.
Since you agree that a revision was necessary, I’ve submitted a counter-criticism of #5292 so that this branch of the discussion tree is consistent (#5323). Ideas are immutable; opening a new branch won’t automatically fix broken branches.
The branch now reflects that your action was rational.
Generally speaking, when a revision addresses a criticism, we don’t submit a counter-criticism.
Let me stress ahead of time that this kind of housekeeping may not seem the most fun, but is indispensable in keeping consistent discussion trees. We can learn to enjoy it. We benefit from this kind of housekeeping by being able to look up which ideas we can rationally adopt.
#5292·Tyler MillsOP, 16 days agoWell the device may deal with some noisy neighbors, but sure, a criticism overall. Edited.
Revision done; criticism not needed.
#5183·Dennis HackethalOP, 28 days ago@edwin-de-wit recently asked Deutsch about this:
… hard to vary can also be a property that you don’t want. Sometimes they say that complicated systems are just so entangled that they’re no longer changeable. You could call that hard to vary but it’s not a property you pursue.
Deutsch’s reply:
Quite so. So hard to vary is about explanations, not about end products. So the end product should be easy to vary, if you want to. But it should be hard to vary in the sense that you don’t want to.
Naval, who’s inspired by Deutsch, says good products are hard to vary, too: https://nav.al/good-products
Gives iPhone as example.
#5320·Tyler MillsOP, 12 days agoInterest 2: This measure of productivity is suspect. By whose yardstick is a day not productive enough? This is itself the source of the anxiety. Just work as much as we can each day without coercion. Asking for any more is foolish.
Interest 1: It's my yardstick. I want to accomplish more, and I know I can (and we do, often, by staying up "too" late). And staying up is working as much as we can each day without coercion. It's stopping and getting ready for bed that requires coercion!
#5318·Tyler MillsOP, 12 days agoInterest 1: Stay up past 16 hours and do more things! Accomplish more, have more fun today and feel like the day was more productive. Some loss of sleep is okay for the sake of accomplishing more, earlier in life.
Interest 2: This measure of productivity is suspect. By whose yardstick is a day not productive enough? This is itself the source of the anxiety. Just work as much as we can each day without coercion. Asking for any more is foolish.
#5317·Tyler MillsOP, 12 days agoPer #5229, here is a debate to find a common preference for the two interests in me.
Interest 2: Go to bed around hour 16, to get the full 8 ours we require for good health and functioning! We regret when we sleep too much less than 8 hours, and the cumulative health impact causes us some background anxiety (which is itself unhealthy).
#5317·Tyler MillsOP, 12 days agoPer #5229, here is a debate to find a common preference for the two interests in me.
Interest 1: Stay up past 16 hours and do more things! Accomplish more, have more fun today and feel like the day was more productive. Some loss of sleep is okay for the sake of accomplishing more, earlier in life.
Per #5229, here is a debate to find a common preference for the two interests in me.
#5243·Benjamin Davies, 20 days agoThis doesn't rule out blue light from other sources disturbing your ability to wind down and fall asleep.
True, I have a lamp that is warm in color, but probably still has some blue in it. I'll consider looking into redder lamps. I still suspect mental stuff is the main issue.