4 ms·

I think that’s unfair to Scott when the entire article is prefaced by “Epistemic status: Extremely confused! Low confidence in all of this” The rationalist mov

I think that’s unfair to Scott when the entire article is prefaced by “Epistemic status: Extremely confused! Low confidence in all of this” The rationalist movement is all about being able to accurately forecast the accuracy of your predictions. Saying we shouldn’t discuss low accuracy predictions at all seems odd - by making early/fuzzy predictions (and acknowledging them as such) we may ex find that we are more accurate than we realize.

didibus 5y ago
Ya, this article did an okay job, I was talking more generally, though I still think there is a few places where he's making bets in that article. > Saying we shouldn’t discuss low accuracy predictions at all seems odd I don't think we're even talking low accuracy here, low accuracy still implies some accuracy, what I'm seeing here is random or potentially even worse than random prediction. The data points to things that are way to broad and general to reason about the cause. I think knowing that is valuable, don't get me wrong, but my conclusion would be, don't bet on this, unless you like playing roulette.