4 ms·

The meta-principle is that in complex domains there is no straight line, well worn, "plannable" path to greatness. Kenneth Stanley calls it "The Myth of the ob

The meta-principle is that in complex domains there is no straight line, well worn, "plannable" path to greatness. Kenneth Stanley calls it "The Myth of the objective" and has spent the last several years trying to formalize this idea (within AI as well) and get it more traction. Book -- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25670869-why-greatness-cannot-be-planned https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25670869-why-greatness-c... Talk -- https://youtu.be/dXQPL9GooyI https://youtu.be/dXQPL9GooyI

slx26 5y ago
Very interesting talk, thanks for sharing, it really adds some weight to the intuitive idea showcased in Feynman's note.
paulz_ 5y ago
Just finished the talk. Plan on reading the book. This is one of the most interesting concepts I've come across in recent memory. Really appreciate you sharing.
humanistbot 5y ago
Reminds me of Suchman's "Plans and Situated Actions" --- an anthropological study of plans and planning, which also has a lot of implications for AI. Resonances to that famous Eisenhower quote "Plans are nothing, planning is everything" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/342380.Plans_and_Situated_Actions https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/342380.Plans_and_Situate...
ddoubleU 5y ago
Woah, thanks for sharing this. I can see a connection with the way Feyman stopped trying to go for his objective yet he still achieved it
bvsrinivasan 5y ago
In all probability, Youtube's algorithm will already suggest this to anyone who watches the talk, but there is a (very) long, ML Street Talk interview on this idea here https://youtu.be/lhYGXYeMq_E https://youtu.be/lhYGXYeMq_E Stanley addresses some strong and subtle criticisms here but I actually preferred the book the most. The book is a bit repetitive but has some very good ideas in the appendix.
ppsreejith 5y ago
Thank you! This was a very interesting watch. I've also started reading the book. For some reason, this reminds me of the debate between Peter Thiel and David Graeber on the topic "Where did the future go?" where Graeber points out the lost potential of people as one major reason. Relevant youtube video and section: https://youtu.be/eF0cz9OmCGw?t=2373 https://youtu.be/eF0cz9OmCGw?t=2373 The video is interesting in its own right.

slx26 5y ago

Very interesting talk, thanks for sharing, it really adds some weight to the intuitive idea showcased in Feynman's note.

paulz_ 5y ago

Just finished the talk. Plan on reading the book. This is one of the most interesting concepts I've come across in recent memory. Really appreciate you sharing.

humanistbot 5y ago

Reminds me of Suchman's "Plans and Situated Actions" --- an anthropological study of plans and planning, which also has a lot of implications for AI. Resonances to that famous Eisenhower quote "Plans are nothing, planning is everything" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/342380.Plans_and_Situated_Actions https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/342380.Plans_and_Situate...

ddoubleU 5y ago

Woah, thanks for sharing this. I can see a connection with the way Feyman stopped trying to go for his objective yet he still achieved it

bvsrinivasan 5y ago

In all probability, Youtube's algorithm will already suggest this to anyone who watches the talk, but there is a (very) long, ML Street Talk interview on this idea here https://youtu.be/lhYGXYeMq_E https://youtu.be/lhYGXYeMq_E Stanley addresses some strong and subtle criticisms here but I actually preferred the book the most. The book is a bit repetitive but has some very good ideas in the appendix.

ppsreejith 5y ago

Thank you! This was a very interesting watch. I've also started reading the book. For some reason, this reminds me of the debate between Peter Thiel and David Graeber on the topic "Where did the future go?" where Graeber points out the lost potential of people as one major reason. Relevant youtube video and section: https://youtu.be/eF0cz9OmCGw?t=2373 https://youtu.be/eF0cz9OmCGw?t=2373 The video is interesting in its own right.