mirror of
https://github.com/wassname/scrape_r_rational.git
synced 2026-09-12 12:50:30 +08:00
79 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
79 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
## [D] Rationality: AI to Zombies; Intros and Parts A & B
|
|
|
|
* Author: u/rthomas2 *
|
|
* URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/5cn7s4/d_rationality_ai_to_zombies_intros_and_parts_a_b/
|
|
* Score: 42
|
|
|
|
* Created: 2016-11-12T23:48:02
|
|
|
|
### Post:
|
|
|
|
There's been some interest among the NYC Less Wrong meetup group of (re-)reading the Sequences. Upon realizing this might be of general interest here, and that reddit provides a good mechanism for discussion, I suggested we make a post. So, for anyone who hasn't read them yet, or anyone looking to do so again, this post is meant as the first in a series discussing the Less Wrong Sequences part by part.
|
|
|
|
We'll be using the edited/consolidated book version, titled "Rationality: from AI to Zombies". It's available [here](https://intelligence.org/rationality-ai-zombies/) as a pay-what-you-want ebook; the suggested price is $5.00, and I will now shamelessly plug MIRI and the authors/editors as good people who you should very much give your money to pretty please with a cherry on top so that they can save the world. /shamelessness
|
|
|
|
Posts will normally come on Wednesdays; due to the hectic-ness of the US election, I've been late posting this first thread. In today's post, the goal is to discuss:
|
|
|
|
- The Preface
|
|
- Biases: an Introduction
|
|
- Part A, and finally
|
|
- Part B
|
|
|
|
So the idea is that anyone who's interested reads as much as they can/like, and then posts any thoughts they have in the comments below. For those in the NYC area, there will also be a live discussion held soon; those looking for dates and times can find them via the OBNYC Google Group, which can be found by searching https://groups.google.com. If anyone has any suggestions for improving this post or future ones, please do PM me. Past that, I hope everyone enjoys, or at the very least experiences that complex mix of pleasure and strife that comes from mind expansion.
|
|
|
|
All the best!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Comments:
|
|
|
|
> **u/xamueljones** [+7] *My arch-enemy is entropy* (2 hours later)
|
|
>
|
|
> Just how much material are you proposing we discuss each week? Looking at my pdf version of the book, the introduction, part A, and part B is ~75 pages total of dense information. Any one of these posts are worth a full discussion on their own.
|
|
>
|
|
> Is there a reason for you to go so quickly through the book?
|
|
|
|
>> **u/rthomas2** [+5] (5 hours later)
|
|
>>
|
|
>> Mainly group preference: the OBNYC folks who suggested the discussion seem to be quick readers. But it's definitely not set in stone; I'm hoping to see what people think is a good pace, and adjust accordingly.
|
|
|
|
>> **u/MoralAbolitionist** [+3] (21 hours later)
|
|
>>
|
|
>> Agree. I'd prefer a slower pace for the reasons already mentioned.
|
|
|
|
>> **u/lawnmowerlatte** [+2] (14 hours later)
|
|
>>
|
|
>> Seconded. I would prefer a slower pace as I have work and family commitments that keep me fairly busy.
|
|
|
|
>>> **u/rthomas2** [+2] (9 days later)
|
|
>>>
|
|
>>> Sounds good; the next post'll be up tomorrow, and it'll be just Part C.
|
|
|
|
> **u/nexech** [+6] (6 hours later)
|
|
>
|
|
> In case anyone is wondering, OBNYC stands for the Overcoming Bias NYC meetup group, which is a Less Wrong meetup.
|
|
|
|
> **u/jonathan_paulson** [+3] (3 days later)
|
|
>
|
|
> I'll start with some chapter summaries from part A (if you feel I've left something important out or mischaracterized something, say so):
|
|
>
|
|
> 1. "Epistemic rationality" is believing true things; "instrumental rationality" is about moving the world in the direction you want
|
|
> 2. Emotions are fine; cold logic isn't an ideal to strive for
|
|
> 3. Good reasons to seek truth are curiosity and a goal; a moral duty towards truth is more suspect
|
|
> 4. A bias is a systematic unforced error in epistemic rationality
|
|
> 5. The availability heuristic is that we judge probabilities by thinking of examples
|
|
> 6. Extra details lower probabilities, even when those details are plausible
|
|
> 7. People are very optimistic in planning. Estimates based on similar past projects are more reliable.
|
|
> 8. We overestimate how well others understand us; it's hard to empathize with the process because we already know what we meant.
|
|
> 9. Don't assume other people have the same base assumptions as you; try to start with their base assumptions
|
|
> 10. Humans can self-reflect and improve themselves
|
|
>
|
|
> And a random thought:
|
|
>
|
|
> On "Burdensome Details": I'm not sure I agree with the thrust of this argument (I agree with the math, of course). There seems to be a tradeoff between inferential distance and details; extra details can show a plausible path to a conclusion, as long as you remember it's one of many paths.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|