Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024
Badges
Activity
How Do Bounties Work?
Bounties let you invite criticism and reward high-quality contributions with real money.
Starting December 23, 2025, select users can run bounties. Anyone can participate.
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 on that idea.
That’s it – you’re in.
How do I get paid?
Each bounty enters a review period roughly five days after it starts (the exact date is shown on the bounty page). The review period lasts 24 hours. During this time, the bounty owner reviews submissions and rejects only those that don’t meet the stated 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 when the review period begins.
- Your submission meets the bounty terms and the site-wide terms.
- You’ve connected a Stripe account in good standing before the review period ends.
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?
The bounty amount is prorated among all eligible submissions.
For example, if there are ten eligible criticisms and you contributed two of them, you receive 20% of the bounty.
Fractions of cents are not paid out. Amounts below USD 0.50 are not paid out.
How do I run a bounty?
Click the megaphone button next to an idea (near 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 authorized, not charged, when the bounty starts.
The bounty typically runs for five to seven days, depending on your card’s authorization window. After around five days, a 24-hour review period begins. During this time, review submissions and reject those 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.
If no eligible criticisms are accepted, your card is never charged.
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?
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 on that idea.
That’s it – you’re in.
How do I get paid?
Each bounty enters a review period roughly five days after it starts (the exact date is shown on the bounty page). The review period lasts 24 hours. During this time, the bounty owner reviews submissions and rejects only those that don’t meet the stated 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 when the review period begins.
- Your submission meets the bounty terms and the site-wide terms.
- You’ve connected a Stripe account in good standing before the review period ends.
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?
The bounty amount is prorated among all eligible submissions.
For example, if there are ten eligible criticisms and you contributed two of them, you receive 20% of the bounty.
Fractions of cents are not paid out. Amounts below USD 0.50 are not paid out.
How do I run a bounty?
Click the megaphone button next to an idea (near 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 authorized, not charged, when the bounty starts.
The bounty typically runs for five to seven days, depending on your card’s authorization window. After around five days, a 24-hour review period begins. During this time, review submissions and reject those 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.
If no eligible criticisms are accepted, your card is never charged.
Start a bounty today. Terms apply.
#3836·Bart Vanderhaegen, about 6 hours agoThe criterion for HTV applied to 2 explanation is not justificationism I think. It allows to say explanation A is better than explanation B, which is equivalent to: explanation B is worse than explanation A. So it is a relative claim about an explanation, relative to another, not versus some absolute criterion of goodness. Similar to a crucial test (e.g. Eddington): we refute Newton's theory and keep Einsteins, that is not a claim about the goodness of Einsteins theory, that theory merely has survived, it has not gotten "goodness points". It could be refuted always later on by any better theory, in which case we would drop it too.
So it is a relative claim about an explanation, relative to another, not versus some absolute criterion of goodness.
So what? I didn’t mention an absolute criterion. My original criticism already applies to both relative and absolute criteria of quality (what you call “goodness”).
#3836·Bart Vanderhaegen, about 6 hours agoThe criterion for HTV applied to 2 explanation is not justificationism I think. It allows to say explanation A is better than explanation B, which is equivalent to: explanation B is worse than explanation A. So it is a relative claim about an explanation, relative to another, not versus some absolute criterion of goodness. Similar to a crucial test (e.g. Eddington): we refute Newton's theory and keep Einsteins, that is not a claim about the goodness of Einsteins theory, that theory merely has survived, it has not gotten "goodness points". It could be refuted always later on by any better theory, in which case we would drop it too.
Similar to a crucial test …
But that’s exactly where HTV differs from Popper. Popper doesn’t give a theory points when it survives a crucial test. HTV does. From BoI chapter 1:
… testable explanations that have passed stringent tests become extremely good explanations …
#3819·Tyler MillsOP, about 18 hours agoI think I've compressed other activities as much as possible. With the current job, I don't think I can increase focus on research any further. The concerns are over the tradeoffs of leaving the day job (finances, impact to employability, etc.).
FWIW, if I was hiring, and I was looking at a resume of someone who always ‘played it safe’ and was very concerned about what others think, I wouldn’t hire them. Whereas I would hire someone who takes smart risks and cares about truth over popularity, even if they have a resume ‘gap’.
#3820·Tyler MillsOP, about 18 hours agoA related idea is to become more disciplined with my time, getting more out of the off days.
Discipline means arbitrarily favoring one conflicting idea over another. ‘Arbitrarily’ meaning favoring without resolving the conflict.
You don’t actually know which idea is better, if any, before you resolve the conflict. So siding with one before then is irrational.
Instead of practicing discipline, practice resolving conflicts between ideas and thus finding common preferences with yourself: ideas you wholeheartedly agree with, have no reservations about.
Veritula helps you with that.
#3821·Tyler MillsOP, about 18 hours agoSo far this has proven ineffective, though a skill which could be improved. However, questions remain for me over whether self-disciplining is good, in general, and where to draw the line between coercion and healthy structure.
skill
Self-discipline isn’t a skill. It’s an anti-skill and irrational.
#3823·Tyler MillsOP, about 18 hours agoThis brings us back to our conversation about discipline. Maybe we can recapitulate here, or maybe best done elsewhere. Lots of things are excruciating, like homework and exams; should I not have done them? Exercise as well. There seem to be problems which can only be solved by maintaining other problems..!
Should suffering be avoided? Not if it's useful..? I'm still conflicted about this.
Should suffering be avoided? Not if it's useful..?
Self-coercion should be avoided, yes. When we coerce ourself, we are not creating knowledge and instead arbitrarily favoring one idea over another. If a part of you disagrees that something is useful, then don’t do it!
You can always find a common preference with yourself. Problems are soluble. Do not act on ideas that have pending criticisms.
https://veritula.com/ideas/2281-rational-decision-making-expanding-on-2112
#3823·Tyler MillsOP, about 18 hours agoThis brings us back to our conversation about discipline. Maybe we can recapitulate here, or maybe best done elsewhere. Lots of things are excruciating, like homework and exams; should I not have done them? Exercise as well. There seem to be problems which can only be solved by maintaining other problems..!
Should suffering be avoided? Not if it's useful..? I'm still conflicted about this.
Just because lots of things are excruciating doesn’t mean life necessarily involves those things. Life doesn’t have to be difficult in this way.
You can find a passion, have fun 100% of the time, and never coerce yourself. (That’s an ideal we can fall short of – if we ‘only’ have fun 90% of the time, that’s still infinitely better than dooming ourselves to a life we hate.)
#3824·Tyler MillsOP, about 17 hours agoI find this point irrefutable, aside from the risk being educated or calculated... Maybe it is those things...
What I would ultimately love to do is pivot into AGI research as a career, but when is pursuing that educated risk-taking vs fantasy?
It would be fantasy/reckless if, for example, you were in your mid 40s, had a family to take care of, and had no savings.
#3824·Tyler MillsOP, about 17 hours agoI find this point irrefutable, aside from the risk being educated or calculated... Maybe it is those things...
What I would ultimately love to do is pivot into AGI research as a career, but when is pursuing that educated risk-taking vs fantasy?
Why does it have to be a career? You could try it for a year or six months or whatever. If you don’t like it, you switch to something else. That’d be fine.
#3825·Tyler MillsOP, about 16 hours agoThe Fountainhead is on my list. Listened to ‘The Simplest Thing in the World’. One message seems to be that one's creativity will continuously resist attempts to coerce it into doing something it doesn't want. A will of its own. I feel such resistance acutely at this current job, more so but no differently than during previous jobs and assignments, as we all have. But what is the import of the story to the present debate? My creative muse will continue fighting me so long as I'm trying to steer it towards other things? I have no doubt. The questions here are over what is practical, secure and strategic, all largely in the financial sense--or so I think. Where does one draw the line between passion and security? Maybe there is no general-purpose explanation. I will continue reflecting.
You didn’t mark this as a criticism, but it sounds like one. Consider revising your idea to mark it as a criticism. (No changes to the text necessary for that.)
#3825·Tyler MillsOP, about 16 hours agoThe Fountainhead is on my list. Listened to ‘The Simplest Thing in the World’. One message seems to be that one's creativity will continuously resist attempts to coerce it into doing something it doesn't want. A will of its own. I feel such resistance acutely at this current job, more so but no differently than during previous jobs and assignments, as we all have. But what is the import of the story to the present debate? My creative muse will continue fighting me so long as I'm trying to steer it towards other things? I have no doubt. The questions here are over what is practical, secure and strategic, all largely in the financial sense--or so I think. Where does one draw the line between passion and security? Maybe there is no general-purpose explanation. I will continue reflecting.
The questions here are over what is practical, secure and strategic, all largely in the financial sense--or so I think.
There’s nothing practical about working a job you hate. There’s nothing practical about fighting yourself.
Where does one draw the line between passion and security?
There’s no security in not pursuing your passion, and there’s no need to make this kind of tradeoff anyway.
Not according to Deutsch. He says hard to vary is epistemologically fundamental, that all progress is based on it. For example, he phrases testability in terms of hard to vary (BoI chapter 1):
When a formerly good explanation has been falsified by new observations, it is no longer a good explanation, because the problem has expanded to include those observations. Thus the standard scientific methodology of dropping theories when refuted by experiment is implied by the requirement for good explanations.
For Deutsch, hard to vary is the key mode of criticism, not just one of many.
Not according to Deutsch. He says hard to vary is epistemologically fundamental, that all progress is based on it. For example, he phrases testability in terms of hard to vary (BoI chapter 1):
When a formerly good explanation has been falsified by new observations, it is no longer a good explanation, because the problem has expanded to include those observations. Thus the standard scientific methodology of dropping theories when refuted by experiment is implied by the requirement for good explanations.
He also says that “good explanations [are] essential to science…” (thanks @tom-nassis for finding this quote). Recall that a good explanation is one that is hard to vary.
For Deutsch, hard to vary is the key mode of criticism, not just one of many.
#3811·Dennis HackethalOP, about 22 hours agoLiberty responded (1:39:46) that that quote is misleading because it makes it sound like hard to vary is the only criterion people use when making decisions, which can’t be true. There are other criteria, like “consistency with data”, “logical consistency”, “fitting in with existing theories”, etc.
It does sound like Deutsch thinks all these different criteria boil down to being about hard vs easy to vary, see #3807.
#3811·Dennis HackethalOP, about 22 hours agoLiberty responded (1:39:46) that that quote is misleading because it makes it sound like hard to vary is the only criterion people use when making decisions, which can’t be true. There are other criteria, like “consistency with data”, “logical consistency”, “fitting in with existing theories”, etc.
The quote may be false, but I don’t see how it’s misleading. I’m not quoting Deutsch in isolation or cherry-picking information or anything like that.
#3809·Dennis HackethalOP, about 22 hours agoI’m not saying hard to vary is a decision-making method. I’m saying it’s an integral part of Deutsch’s decision-making method. As I write in my article:
He argues that “we should choose between [explanations] according to how good they are…: how hard to vary.”
Liberty responded (1:39:46) that that quote is misleading because it makes it sound like hard to vary is the only criterion people use when making decisions, which can’t be true. There are other criteria, like “consistency with data”, “logical consistency”, “fitting in with existing theories”, etc.
#3808·Dennis HackethalOP, about 22 hours agoLiberty said (at 1:38:39) hard to vary isn’t a method of decision-making. It’s a factor people take into account when they make decisions, but decision-making itself is a creative process.
I’m fine allowing user input to sidestep the creativity problem, see #3802.
#3808·Dennis HackethalOP, about 22 hours agoLiberty said (at 1:38:39) hard to vary isn’t a method of decision-making. It’s a factor people take into account when they make decisions, but decision-making itself is a creative process.
I’m not saying hard to vary is a decision-making method. I’m saying it’s an integral part of Deutsch’s decision-making method. As I write in my article:
He argues that “we should choose between [explanations] according to how good they are…: how hard to vary.”
#3707·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days agoDeutsch contradicts his yardstick for understanding a computational task. He says that you haven’t understood a computational task if you can’t program it. His method of decision-making based on finding good explanations is a computational task. He can’t program it, so he hasn’t understood it.
Liberty said (at 1:38:39) hard to vary isn’t a method of decision-making. It’s a factor people take into account when they make decisions, but decision-making itself is a creative process.
#3806·Dennis HackethalOP, about 23 hours agofundamental
@zelalem-mekonnen suggested during a space (37:36) that hard to vary is just one mode of criticism.
Not according to Deutsch. He says hard to vary is epistemologically fundamental, that all progress is based on it. For example, he phrases testability in terms of hard to vary (BoI chapter 1):
When a formerly good explanation has been falsified by new observations, it is no longer a good explanation, because the problem has expanded to include those observations. Thus the standard scientific methodology of dropping theories when refuted by experiment is implied by the requirement for good explanations.
For Deutsch, hard to vary is the key mode of criticism, not just one of many.
#3719·Dennis HackethalOP revised 4 days agoFrom my article:
[I]sn’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. In which case the difficulty of changing an explanation is, again, not an objective property of that explanation but a subjective property of its critics. How could subjective properties be epistemologically fundamental?
fundamental
@zelalem-mekonnen suggested during a space (37:36) that hard to vary is just one mode of criticism.
But calling a theory ‘good’ sounds like an endorsement. Deutsch also writes (BoI chapter 10) that a “superb” theory is “exceedingly hard to vary”. Ultimately we’d have to ask him, but for now I think it’s fair to conclude that he means ‘hard to vary’ as an endorsement.
But calling a theory ‘good’ sounds like an endorsement. Deutsch also writes (BoI chapter 10) that a “superb” theory is “exceedingly hard to vary”. Ultimately we’d have to ask him, but for now, given the strength and positivity of those terms, I think it’s fair to conclude that he means ‘hard to vary’ as an endorsement.
Even if we allow creative user input, eg a score for the quality of an explanation, we run into all kinds of open questions, such as what upper and lower limits to use for the score, and unexpected behavior, such as criticisms pushing an explanations score beyond those limits.
Even if we allow creative user input, eg a score for the quality of an explanation, we run into all kinds of open questions, such as what upper and lower limits to use for the score, and unexpected behavior, such as criticisms pushing an explanation’s score beyond those limits.
#3797·Dennis HackethalOP, about 23 hours ago@dirk-meulenbelt suggested in a space (at 21:30) that a bunch of epistemology is underspecified. There are many epistemological concepts (like criterion of democracy, falsifiability, etc.) that we don’t know enough about to express in code.
As I write in my article:
… Popper did formalize/specify much of his epistemology, such as the notions of empirical content and degrees of falsifiability. So why couldn’t Deutsch formalize the steps for finding the quality of a given explanation?