4 ms·

Whenever I see an internet article (not written by a statistician and not a research paper) start with a reference to Bayes Theorem and its purported "perfectio

by the_af 3y ago

Whenever I see an internet article (not written by a statistician and not a research paper) start with a reference to Bayes Theorem and its purported "perfection", I can safely bet it was written by a LessWrong'er and specifically a fan of Eliezer Yudkowsky. And behold! Just clicking on the Bayes link takes me to another article that immediately mentions Yudkowsky. I wonder what attracts internet people to Yudkowsky's brand of crackpottery, and specifically, what about Bayes elicits their quasi-religious awe.

embwbam 3y ago
I don’t identify with the religious zeal around bayes theorem, but can you elaborate on your criticisms of Yudkowsky? I’ve loved Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality and read some of his essays, and Less Wrong’s coverage of cognitive bias helped me escape religion. I don’t agree with everything I’ve read of his, but I’m very curious at what point he becomes a crackpot.
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  I gave up halfway through MoR, but to me it read as a self-insert nerd power fantasy. All non main-characters always end up agreeing with the all knowing MC even though there are obvious gaps in the reasoning.
  - PaulHoule 3y ago
    "Sequences" and other Yudkowksy writings are long and incoherent not by accident but by design. The point is to drive away anybody who has faculties of critical thinking. It's like those ads you see on the internet where they tell you that "TINNITUS IS DESTROYING YOUR BRAIN" or tell you what intermittent fasting plan is right for your shoe size and then send you to some two and a half long video that is there to weed out anybody who isn't incredibly credulous and after all that you find out it is some lame-ass supplement. Or it is like those poorly spelled letters that tell you the widow of some African dictator wants to to send you $15 million by Western Union. Someone who's gotten through all that really is someone vulnerable who can be wrapped around someone's finger. People who are good at critical thinking aren't looking for the secret to become good critical thinkers.
    - stuartjohnson12 3y ago
      Do you have any evidence that this is true other than the fact you SuperDisagree with the text as written?
    - embwbam 3y ago
      Woah, that's a very cynical take! He made them obtuse on purpose? You're not wrong that I found the Sequences extremely challenging, and didn't get through all of them. But I thought he wrote HPMOR to make the lessons more accessible, and I found that much easier to read. Isn't it simpler to explain the situation by assuming he just got better at writing over time, and that stories teach lessons better than essays? It doesn't require a conspiracy to explain what you see.
Herring 3y ago
>Person on the internet likes something. Time to shit on it! Another safe bet on the internet: unnecessarily caustic comments.
- the_af 3y ago
  That's an unfair characterization of my position. I don't object to people being passionate about niche hobbies -- I don't mock otakus or cosplayers for example -- I object to people LARPing as researchers and philosophers on topics they haven't made any serious contribution to, and particularly if they brand themselves as "rationalists" and on the path of being "less wrong" than others through their enlightened thought processes. In other words, I mock crackpots and cultists.
dinkleberg 3y ago
Perhaps I'm too much of a grug brain, but the LessWrong community feels a bit cringey to me. Its probably an unfair characterization, but I get the feeling a lot of them don't make a decision without consulting their handbooks. Life is too short to overthink everything! But to each their own. They are doing what they enjoy I suppose.
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
>"I wonder what attracts internet people to Yudkowsky's brand of crackpottery, and specifically, what about Bayes elicits their quasi-religious awe." I think it is because a lot of people think the human brain operates on Bayesian logic. Thus maybe the 'quasi-religious', because it is seen as a clue to how we are conscious. The human 'spark' is really math, and it is Bayes. So when talking about human consciousness, it can start to sound maybe a little 'religious' in terminology. I'm reading Anil Seth at moment, and it can be a compelling argument.
- trashtester 3y ago
  I think there may be reasons to think that human minds operate by something resembling Bayesian logic. However, it appears that we do tend to round some priors to either 1 or 0. And it's specifically when we do that that we start to behave religously. The next time somebody claims that the human brain operates according to bayesian logic, simply ask them what prior probability they (currently, until the next update) would assign to that claim.
  - notaurus 3y ago
    > The next time somebody claims that the human brain operates according to bayesian logic, simply ask them what prior probability they (currently, until the next update) would assign to that claim. A = a person is able to (correctly or not) quantify their priors B = brain operates according to Bayesian logic P( A ) ≈ P( A | B )
    - trashtester 3y ago
      So you're saying that P(A) is almost independent of B, as in P( A ) ≈ P( A | B ) ≈ P( A | ¬B ) ? I suppose my argument is that if someone is using priors that are either a hard 1 or a hard 0, they've removed themselves from the ability to use Bayesian logic at all in any situation where data points in the opposite direction of their priors. While you can still call it "Bayesian" if you insert a prior of 0, I think such an argument is a direct contradiction of the purpose of using Bayesian logic. In other words, I would argue that P( ¬A | B ) ≈ 0. Refusual to admit a prior greater than a hard 0 is not compatible with Bayesian logic. Prior probabilities of exactly 0 should be seens as outside of the valid domain within Bayesian logic under most circustances.

by the_af 3y ago

embwbam 3y ago

I don’t identify with the religious zeal around bayes theorem, but can you elaborate on your criticisms of Yudkowsky? I’ve loved Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality and read some of his essays, and Less Wrong’s coverage of cognitive bias helped me escape religion. I don’t agree with everything I’ve read of his, but I’m very curious at what point he becomes a crackpot.

_Algernon_ 3y ago
I gave up halfway through MoR, but to me it read as a self-insert nerd power fantasy. All non main-characters always end up agreeing with the all knowing MC even though there are obvious gaps in the reasoning.
- PaulHoule 3y ago
  "Sequences" and other Yudkowksy writings are long and incoherent not by accident but by design. The point is to drive away anybody who has faculties of critical thinking. It's like those ads you see on the internet where they tell you that "TINNITUS IS DESTROYING YOUR BRAIN" or tell you what intermittent fasting plan is right for your shoe size and then send you to some two and a half long video that is there to weed out anybody who isn't incredibly credulous and after all that you find out it is some lame-ass supplement. Or it is like those poorly spelled letters that tell you the widow of some African dictator wants to to send you $15 million by Western Union. Someone who's gotten through all that really is someone vulnerable who can be wrapped around someone's finger. People who are good at critical thinking aren't looking for the secret to become good critical thinkers.
  - stuartjohnson12 3y ago
    Do you have any evidence that this is true other than the fact you SuperDisagree with the text as written?
  - embwbam 3y ago
    Woah, that's a very cynical take! He made them obtuse on purpose? You're not wrong that I found the Sequences extremely challenging, and didn't get through all of them. But I thought he wrote HPMOR to make the lessons more accessible, and I found that much easier to read. Isn't it simpler to explain the situation by assuming he just got better at writing over time, and that stories teach lessons better than essays? It doesn't require a conspiracy to explain what you see.

Herring 3y ago

>Person on the internet likes something. Time to shit on it! Another safe bet on the internet: unnecessarily caustic comments.

the_af 3y ago
That's an unfair characterization of my position. I don't object to people being passionate about niche hobbies -- I don't mock otakus or cosplayers for example -- I object to people LARPing as researchers and philosophers on topics they haven't made any serious contribution to, and particularly if they brand themselves as "rationalists" and on the path of being "less wrong" than others through their enlightened thought processes. In other words, I mock crackpots and cultists.

dinkleberg 3y ago

Perhaps I'm too much of a grug brain, but the LessWrong community feels a bit cringey to me. Its probably an unfair characterization, but I get the feeling a lot of them don't make a decision without consulting their handbooks. Life is too short to overthink everything! But to each their own. They are doing what they enjoy I suppose.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

>"I wonder what attracts internet people to Yudkowsky's brand of crackpottery, and specifically, what about Bayes elicits their quasi-religious awe." I think it is because a lot of people think the human brain operates on Bayesian logic. Thus maybe the 'quasi-religious', because it is seen as a clue to how we are conscious. The human 'spark' is really math, and it is Bayes. So when talking about human consciousness, it can start to sound maybe a little 'religious' in terminology. I'm reading Anil Seth at moment, and it can be a compelling argument.

trashtester 3y ago
I think there may be reasons to think that human minds operate by something resembling Bayesian logic. However, it appears that we do tend to round some priors to either 1 or 0. And it's specifically when we do that that we start to behave religously. The next time somebody claims that the human brain operates according to bayesian logic, simply ask them what prior probability they (currently, until the next update) would assign to that claim.
- notaurus 3y ago
  > The next time somebody claims that the human brain operates according to bayesian logic, simply ask them what prior probability they (currently, until the next update) would assign to that claim. A = a person is able to (correctly or not) quantify their priors B = brain operates according to Bayesian logic P( A ) ≈ P( A | B )
  - trashtester 3y ago
    So you're saying that P(A) is almost independent of B, as in P( A ) ≈ P( A | B ) ≈ P( A | ¬B ) ? I suppose my argument is that if someone is using priors that are either a hard 1 or a hard 0, they've removed themselves from the ability to use Bayesian logic at all in any situation where data points in the opposite direction of their priors. While you can still call it "Bayesian" if you insert a prior of 0, I think such an argument is a direct contradiction of the purpose of using Bayesian logic. In other words, I would argue that P( ¬A | B ) ≈ 0. Refusual to admit a prior greater than a hard 0 is not compatible with Bayesian logic. Prior probabilities of exactly 0 should be seens as outside of the valid domain within Bayesian logic under most circustances.