I also observe that wedrifid’s opinion of you doesn’t appear to be steered with equal expected posterior probability in light of how you react versus his predictions of your reactions.
I’m curious as to whether I’m on to something there, or whether I just pulled something random and my intuitions are wrong.
I also observe that wedrifid’s opinion of you doesn’t appear to be steered with equal expected posterior probability in light of how you react versus his predictions of your reactions.
I can’t even decipher what it is you are accusing wedrifid of here. Apart from being wrong and biased somehow.
On pain of paradox, a low probability of seeing strong evidence in one direction must be balanced by a high probability of observing weak counterevidence in the other direction.
This rule did not seem respected in what little I’ve seen of interactions between you and Eliezer, and I was looking for external feedback and evidence (one way or another) for this hypothesis, to see if there is a valid body of evidence justifying the selection of this hypothesis for consideration or if that simply happened out of bias and inappropriate heuristics.
I suspect that, if the latter, then there was probably an erroneous pattern-matching to the examples given in the related blogpost on the subject (and other examples I have seen of this kind of erroneous thinking).
I don’t know how to submit this stuff for feedback and review without using a specific “accusation” or wasting a lot of time creating (and double-checking for consistency) elaborating complex counterfactual scenarios.
I also observe that wedrifid’s opinion of you doesn’t appear to be steered with equal expected posterior probability in light of how you react versus his predictions of your reactions.
I’m curious as to whether I’m on to something there, or whether I just pulled something random and my intuitions are wrong.
I can’t even decipher what it is you are accusing wedrifid of here. Apart from being wrong and biased somehow.
I’m referring to a specific part of bayesian updating, conservation of expected evidence. Specifically:
This rule did not seem respected in what little I’ve seen of interactions between you and Eliezer, and I was looking for external feedback and evidence (one way or another) for this hypothesis, to see if there is a valid body of evidence justifying the selection of this hypothesis for consideration or if that simply happened out of bias and inappropriate heuristics.
I suspect that, if the latter, then there was probably an erroneous pattern-matching to the examples given in the related blogpost on the subject (and other examples I have seen of this kind of erroneous thinking).
I don’t know how to submit this stuff for feedback and review without using a specific “accusation” or wasting a lot of time creating (and double-checking for consistency) elaborating complex counterfactual scenarios.