isomorphic to experiments in science, false and correct theories
davidr
Karma: 32
“On the contrary, it’s because someone knows something about it that we can’t talk about physics. It’s the things that nobody knows about that we can discuss. We can talk about the weather; we can talk about social problems; we can talk about psychology; we can talk about international finance… so it’s the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about! ”
-- Richard Feynman
I’m not sure it’s accurate to say of Spain, more like of Al-Andalus..
I purchased AI: A Modern Approach by Norvig and Russell in march 2008, and by December I’d read a pathetic 80 pages due to work and general cant be botheredness. So I decided to choose a deadline that had some sort of symbolic significance. I would have to finish the book before the end of the 2008. Yes, that meant over 1000 pages of textbook material before the year was out.
I calculated it would take 40 pages a day; skimming was not allowed nor was moving ahead without a solid understanding of the material. I knew that the end of the book would be a cushion, since there were a number of pages on philosophical issues that were pretty familiar for me.
The result was successful and I learned a few things similar to what Yvain has posted. One of them is leave yourself outs, don’t be too ambitious, because the damage of a failure is persistent beyond a particular case. If you don’t have a good idea of how demanding the objective will be, err on the side of laziness, or do a smaller test run. Choose small short term objectives, because if you don’t calibrate well and end up having to strain, it won’t be for long and you’ll get a better idea what you can do. In my case I went on 5 day trip and had to drag the book along and steal time to read, not good. But thanks to the experience I know that a 1000+ page text book per month is not realistic for me.
My interpretation is Aurelius’ quote was an earlier verision of “it all adds up to normality”
“Everything that happens happens as it should, and if you observe carefully, you will find this to be so. ”—Marcus Aurelius
Can you elaborate on what was said, and why most of what you had to say to each other fits in only 1 hour?
Carla Bruni
Peter Voss, Dharmendra Modha, Henry Markram.
Ben Goertzel on how he’s research director for SIAI but Eliezer “does not consider his AI theory reasonable”
Im not sure its just a matter of rationality (which it is), but also of complexity, ie predicting or estimating utility for policy A vs B can be impossible to model because of chaotic effects etc.
Just because most of the mistakes we see when people argue politics are rather obvious (from a rationalistic pov) doesnt mean they are the only ones. Otherwise social science and economics would be sciences, with capital S.
I was going to be more cautious but, this is the road to disaster. There is so much room to turn apparently good intentions into ugly ugly concrete implementations that I’d rather act as if this post never existed.
What post?