3 ms·

I'm surprised they got through the whole article without mentioning Nietzsche's der Wille zur Macht (will to power), which seems to be qualitatively identical (

by scythe 14y ago

I'm surprised they got through the whole article without mentioning Nietzsche's der Wille zur Macht (will to power), which seems to be qualitatively identical (or at least very similar) to this proposal. Not bad for a philosopher from the 1800s.

pjscott 14y ago
These guys have math and experimental results; Neitzsche was, at best, far more vague.
guylhem 14y ago
It seems to me that Nietzsche work is frequently discussed yet rarely read. I read Zarathustra with a goal of non casual reading - it took me 6 months, due to what is IMHO the complexity of the issues discussed. One has to frequently stop at every paragraph to ponder whether one's understanding is correct, and how it articulates with the other paragraphs. If on average, it takes more time indeed to read Nietzsche than any other author, there might be an adverse selection against reading Nietzsche's work - to maximise utility, if one is to judge utility by the amount of book read as I frequently see in goals list (1 book a week, etc) A consequence could be that among those who are discussing his work, especially outside philosophy (CS, math, etc.) very few people have actually read any of it - or a whole book.
- dmix 14y ago
  > One has to frequently stop at every paragraph to ponder whether one's understanding is correct, and how it articulates with the other paragraphs. Which is interesting, because Nietzsche is generally seen as one of the more accessible of the philosophers from around that period. I highly recommend reading Arthur Schopenhauer's work as well which heavily influenced Nietzsche. It predates Nietzsche's work by about 30yrs but it is very similar (although much more nihilistic). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer
Pitarou 14y ago
That was the first thing that occurred to me, too. As the earlier discussion about chess suggests, interactions with other intelligent agents complicate matters. An intelligent agent shouldn't just attempt to maximise the number of possible states -- such an agent may well choose to be passive, and allow the other agent to run the show, which isn't a very useful outcome. Rather, an intelligent agent should attempt to maximise the number of outcomes WHICH IT CAN DETERMINE. And that is the will to power.

by scythe 14y ago

pjscott 14y ago

These guys have math and experimental results; Neitzsche was, at best, far more vague.

guylhem 14y ago

It seems to me that Nietzsche work is frequently discussed yet rarely read. I read Zarathustra with a goal of non casual reading - it took me 6 months, due to what is IMHO the complexity of the issues discussed. One has to frequently stop at every paragraph to ponder whether one's understanding is correct, and how it articulates with the other paragraphs. If on average, it takes more time indeed to read Nietzsche than any other author, there might be an adverse selection against reading Nietzsche's work - to maximise utility, if one is to judge utility by the amount of book read as I frequently see in goals list (1 book a week, etc) A consequence could be that among those who are discussing his work, especially outside philosophy (CS, math, etc.) very few people have actually read any of it - or a whole book.

dmix 14y ago
> One has to frequently stop at every paragraph to ponder whether one's understanding is correct, and how it articulates with the other paragraphs. Which is interesting, because Nietzsche is generally seen as one of the more accessible of the philosophers from around that period. I highly recommend reading Arthur Schopenhauer's work as well which heavily influenced Nietzsche. It predates Nietzsche's work by about 30yrs but it is very similar (although much more nihilistic). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer

Pitarou 14y ago

That was the first thing that occurred to me, too. As the earlier discussion about chess suggests, interactions with other intelligent agents complicate matters. An intelligent agent shouldn't just attempt to maximise the number of possible states -- such an agent may well choose to be passive, and allow the other agent to run the show, which isn't a very useful outcome. Rather, an intelligent agent should attempt to maximise the number of outcomes WHICH IT CAN DETERMINE. And that is the will to power.