Search Ideas
2886 ideas match your query.:
It’s because of text-wrap: pretty;
Chromium renders it properly. Desktop and mobile Safari doesn’t.
Ben found a UI bug:
The text shouldn’t wrap after “trust”.
How to Be Rational: https://x.com/dchackethal/status/2091272979791659054
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.
Brett says this can’t be a fully specified criterion of rationality because it’s not an AGI.
Brett doesn’t know this is a common objection I’ve addressed before. For example, I wrote a variant in #1976. My paper also addresses it (last objection in section 5).
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.
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.”
Brett Hall says this basically comes down to getting the “best explanation” but is “not quite right”.
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.
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.
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.
Naval, who’s inspired by Deutsch, says good products are hard to vary, too: https://nav.al/good-products
Gives iPhone as example.
But HTV is also about art (BoI chapter 14).
A piece of art is a kind of end product. And we could write code to produce art.
AFAIK it creates no physical dependence and you don’t build a tolerance.
I was wrong to submit this criticism in this form; it should be only about the lack of dependence. Otherwise the criticism chain is inverted for #5203.
What’s not to love?
#5203 already says: causes people to wake up early. (Can corroborate.)
~All previous methods of preference formation focus too much on what the ideas say; on their content.
Nobody really knows just how simple an idea is (Occam’s razor) or how likely (Bayesianism), for example. In some cases it’s obvious how ideas compare, but in others not so much.
Adherents of those epistemologies are all fooling themselves into thinking they’re being rational when really they’re still acting on whim. Just fancier whim.
Focus instead on how the ideas relate, on the structure of the current state of the discussion, and preference formation gets much easier and simpler.
Then you can easily see which ideas you can adopt and which you can’t. You can even see exactly which criticisms you’d need to address to change someone’s mind, say.
Beautiful.
… it seems like finding a common preference is the thing to do …
It is.
… (and it seems like it works).
It usually does.
But isn't that the same as compromising?
No. A common preference is a new option everyone involved prefers to their respective original stance. A compromise is an option they do not prefer, but merely reluctantly agree to. And it’s usually not really new in content but resulted from mechanically mixing existing options. See the article linked in #5301.
… a compromise can actually be bad, because it is a new theory that no one was advocating for.
Compromise is always bad. It’s a form of irrationality.
Gemini says Brett Hall...
No it’s TCS: https://takingchildrenseriously.com/how-is-a-compromise-not-a-real-solution/
Time-release melatonin has solved the backfire problem for me. But I don't want to be dependent on it forever to get a good 8 hours.