5 ms·

> In many cases, estimating the prior is just guesswork, allowing subjective factors to creep into your calculations. You might be guessing the probability of s

by cwyers 11y ago

> In many cases, estimating the prior is just guesswork, allowing subjective factors to creep into your calculations. You might be guessing the probability of something that--unlike cancer—does not even exist, such as strings, multiverses, inflation or God. You might then cite dubious evidence to support your dubious belief. In this way, Bayes’ theorem can promote pseudoscience and superstition as well as reason. Oh please. You can do plenty of psuedoscience and superstition with good old frequentist statistics. And of all the people you could pick to represent Bayesian statistics, instead of I don't know, Andrew Gelman or someone, the author picks... Eliezer Yudkowsky? If nothing else, this provides inspiration for me to quit procrastinating on my "ASK ME ABOUT ROKO'S BASILISK" novelty t-shirt idea.

privong 11y ago
> Oh please. You can do plenty of psuedoscience and superstition with good old frequentist statistics. That's not really the point. The article is simply saying that Bayesian methods are not a silver bullet; it's not saying that other methods of statistics are free from problems.
- cwyers 11y ago
  > The article is simply saying that Bayesian methods are not a silver bullet But it's not really saying it in passing; the headline is taken from that paragraph. At that point it almost feels like a takedown of a strawman Bayesian.
entrode 11y ago
I suspect Eliezer is targeted specifically due to his tongue-in-cheek presentation of understanding Bayesian statistics as being initiation into a cult. Also due to the author's familiarity with the topic likely specifically as a result of Eliezer's efforts to popularize the subject and his association to him resultantly.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  Sure, but who cares? There's an entire field of statistics called "Bayesian statistics", who do actual math and statistics and don't give a damn about novelty T-shirts.
flurie 11y ago
Roko's Basilisk has decided to punish you by having allowed others to create the shirt ahead of you. http://i.imgur.com/XlydDcK.jpg http://i.imgur.com/XlydDcK.jpg https://teespring.com/ask-me-about-roko-s-basilisk https://teespring.com/ask-me-about-roko-s-basilisk
- cwyers 11y ago
  The second one is actually mine, I didn't promote it because I was unhappy with the font.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Yudkowsky has been one of the most instrumental and highly regarded figures in promoting Bayesian epistemology, among other woo that engineers and programmers are oddly susceptible to. Nothing wrong with singling him out.
- cwyers 11y ago
  I agree with pretty much everything you say here, but then I think the article conflates Yudkowsky's Bayes-flavored woo with what most people mean when they talk about Bayesian statistics.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
> If nothing else, this provides inspiration for me to quit procrastinating on my "ASK ME ABOUT ROKO'S BASILISK" novelty t-shirt idea. Can you tell us the story about that party when you got so drunk and started yelling in anger at a poor random dude? Except you weren't drunk at all and the dude behaved like an asshole, but nobody cares about the truth since you're a nerd and you look cute when you're sad that we're telling stories about your drinking problems. That's basically what happened there. I wish people stopped with this Roko's Basilisk nonsense.
- taliesinb 11y ago
  Can you unpack that strange analogy a little, please?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    There was a thread on LW about potential information hazards[0] - in particular, a kind created by the special flavor of decision theory which was being developed there. This was one of the "peculiar out there" kind of stuff LW people like to play with. Here comes Roko, who says that he created a potential hazardous piece of information - a thing that if you know it, you're fucked - that could lead to people suffering, and then posts it right there. Eliezer deleted the comment, claiming Roko is being irresponsible (and wrong, but still irresponsible if he believed that what he posted was a hazard), and the topic of what became known as Roko's basilisk was banned from discussion for some time. Eliezer's argument was that Roko behaved unethically by posting something he claimed to believe will hurt people who will read it. That's irrelevant to whether the post itself was an information hazard or not. Eliezer actually later claimed it wasn't, that Roko was wrong. But the whole situation ended up being used to prove the point that LW people are loonies who invent and believe crazy things. Hence my analogy, in which one person is rightfully angry at another, but ends up being painted as having issues instead. [0] - https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Information_hazard https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Information_hazard
cbd1984 11y ago
> my "ASK ME ABOUT ROKO'S BASILISK" novelty t-shirt idea. Why should we take you seriously when you resort to such cheap attacks?

by cwyers 11y ago

privong 11y ago

> Oh please. You can do plenty of psuedoscience and superstition with good old frequentist statistics. That's not really the point. The article is simply saying that Bayesian methods are not a silver bullet; it's not saying that other methods of statistics are free from problems.

cwyers 11y ago
> The article is simply saying that Bayesian methods are not a silver bullet But it's not really saying it in passing; the headline is taken from that paragraph. At that point it almost feels like a takedown of a strawman Bayesian.

entrode 11y ago

I suspect Eliezer is targeted specifically due to his tongue-in-cheek presentation of understanding Bayesian statistics as being initiation into a cult. Also due to the author's familiarity with the topic likely specifically as a result of Eliezer's efforts to popularize the subject and his association to him resultantly.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Sure, but who cares? There's an entire field of statistics called "Bayesian statistics", who do actual math and statistics and don't give a damn about novelty T-shirts.

flurie 11y ago

Roko's Basilisk has decided to punish you by having allowed others to create the shirt ahead of you. http://i.imgur.com/XlydDcK.jpg http://i.imgur.com/XlydDcK.jpg https://teespring.com/ask-me-about-roko-s-basilisk https://teespring.com/ask-me-about-roko-s-basilisk

cwyers 11y ago
The second one is actually mine, I didn't promote it because I was unhappy with the font.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

Yudkowsky has been one of the most instrumental and highly regarded figures in promoting Bayesian epistemology, among other woo that engineers and programmers are oddly susceptible to. Nothing wrong with singling him out.

cwyers 11y ago
I agree with pretty much everything you say here, but then I think the article conflates Yudkowsky's Bayes-flavored woo with what most people mean when they talk about Bayesian statistics.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> If nothing else, this provides inspiration for me to quit procrastinating on my "ASK ME ABOUT ROKO'S BASILISK" novelty t-shirt idea. Can you tell us the story about that party when you got so drunk and started yelling in anger at a poor random dude? Except you weren't drunk at all and the dude behaved like an asshole, but nobody cares about the truth since you're a nerd and you look cute when you're sad that we're telling stories about your drinking problems. That's basically what happened there. I wish people stopped with this Roko's Basilisk nonsense.

taliesinb 11y ago
Can you unpack that strange analogy a little, please?
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  There was a thread on LW about potential information hazards[0] - in particular, a kind created by the special flavor of decision theory which was being developed there. This was one of the "peculiar out there" kind of stuff LW people like to play with. Here comes Roko, who says that he created a potential hazardous piece of information - a thing that if you know it, you're fucked - that could lead to people suffering, and then posts it right there. Eliezer deleted the comment, claiming Roko is being irresponsible (and wrong, but still irresponsible if he believed that what he posted was a hazard), and the topic of what became known as Roko's basilisk was banned from discussion for some time. Eliezer's argument was that Roko behaved unethically by posting something he claimed to believe will hurt people who will read it. That's irrelevant to whether the post itself was an information hazard or not. Eliezer actually later claimed it wasn't, that Roko was wrong. But the whole situation ended up being used to prove the point that LW people are loonies who invent and believe crazy things. Hence my analogy, in which one person is rightfully angry at another, but ends up being painted as having issues instead. [0] - https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Information_hazard https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Information_hazard

cbd1984 11y ago

> my "ASK ME ABOUT ROKO'S BASILISK" novelty t-shirt idea. Why should we take you seriously when you resort to such cheap attacks?