That’s only one piece of rationality, and I think the general conclusion was “ask an artificial intelligence you can trust” would be the only scalable way for humans to be genuinely rational in their decision-making. It does not matter what algorithm that machine uses internally, merely it is the best performing one from the class of “sufficiently trustworthy” choices.
Note this is a feasible thing to do, for example the activation function Swish was found this way.
A lot of the rest of it was dismissing obviously wrong individuals and institutions? You saw how you dismissed the idea of “start with a prior from the median of mainstream knowledge” and “update with each anecdote”?
The thing is, that method is arguably better than many institutions and individuals are. At least it uses information to make it’s decision.
One of the tenants of “what does $authority_figure claim to know and how does he know it” allows you to dismiss obviously wrong/misaligned authorities on subjects.
Such as the FDA or machine learning scientists setting 2060 as the date for AGI. (the FDA is misaligned, it serves it’s own interests not the interests of living Americans wanting to remain that way. the ML scientists did not account for an increase in investment or recursive improvement)
There are a lot of other ideas and societal practices that are simply based on bullshit, no actual thought or process was even followed to generate them, they are usually just parroting some past flawed idea. Like what you said regarding Bayes.
Then why does industry use Dirichlet, not Bayes? You keep pretending yours is better, when everyone who has to publish physics used additional methods, from this century. None of you explain why industry would use Dirichlet, if Bayes is superior. Further, why would Dirichlet even be PUBLISHED unless it’s an improvement? You completely disregard these blinding facts. More has happened in the last 260 years than just Bayes’ Theorem, and your suspicion of the FDA doesn’t change that fact.
That’s only one piece of rationality, and I think the general conclusion was “ask an artificial intelligence you can trust” would be the only scalable way for humans to be genuinely rational in their decision-making. It does not matter what algorithm that machine uses internally, merely it is the best performing one from the class of “sufficiently trustworthy” choices.
Note this is a feasible thing to do, for example the activation function Swish was found this way.
A lot of the rest of it was dismissing obviously wrong individuals and institutions? You saw how you dismissed the idea of “start with a prior from the median of mainstream knowledge” and “update with each anecdote”?
The thing is, that method is arguably better than many institutions and individuals are. At least it uses information to make it’s decision.
One of the tenants of “what does $authority_figure claim to know and how does he know it” allows you to dismiss obviously wrong/misaligned authorities on subjects.
Such as the FDA or machine learning scientists setting 2060 as the date for AGI. (the FDA is misaligned, it serves it’s own interests not the interests of living Americans wanting to remain that way. the ML scientists did not account for an increase in investment or recursive improvement)
There are a lot of other ideas and societal practices that are simply based on bullshit, no actual thought or process was even followed to generate them, they are usually just parroting some past flawed idea. Like what you said regarding Bayes.
Then why does industry use Dirichlet, not Bayes? You keep pretending yours is better, when everyone who has to publish physics used additional methods, from this century. None of you explain why industry would use Dirichlet, if Bayes is superior. Further, why would Dirichlet even be PUBLISHED unless it’s an improvement? You completely disregard these blinding facts. More has happened in the last 260 years than just Bayes’ Theorem, and your suspicion of the FDA doesn’t change that fact.