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 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.