Just try to emulate what a hypercomputer would do?
No. RYK is a terrible chess program, even worse than Yudkowsky.
Every so often, answer a question twice, once using formalisms in some place, the other times using intuition in that place. If they output different answers, notice your confusion. Do not be confident in any course of action (I do not say do not take action) until you think you know why they gave different answers. Learn about formalisms and intuition until you know where you went wrong—and if you got different answers you certainly went wrong somewhere, if you got the same answers you possibly went wrong somewhere.
Let me put words in lessdazed’s mouth: “Every so often, answer a question twice, once using formalisms in some place, the other times using intuition in that place. If they output different answers, . . .”
Good post.
Break it down:
What is evidence? How do we gather that?
No. RYK is a terrible chess program, even worse than Yudkowsky.
Every so often, answer a question twice, once using formalisms in some place, the other times using intuition in that place. If they output different answers, notice your confusion. Do not be confident in any course of action (I do not say do not take action) until you think you know why they gave different answers. Learn about formalisms and intuition until you know where you went wrong—and if you got different answers you certainly went wrong somewhere, if you got the same answers you possibly went wrong somewhere.
This seems wrong, in exactly the same way that “apply reasoning and observation separately” is wrong.
Let me put words in lessdazed’s mouth: “Every so often, answer a question twice, once using formalisms in some place, the other times using intuition in that place. If they output different answers, . . .”
Permission granted, edited.