SneerClub

989 readers

18 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

self@awful.systems

blakestacey@awful.systems

dgerard@awful.systems

Sequence classic: "I don’t think you could get up to 99.99% confidence for assertions like “53 is a prime number.” (www.lesswrong.com)

submitted 1 year ago by titotal@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I didn't expect that the repetition of a banal yet occasionally useful saying like "the map is not the territory" could make a person deserve being shoved into a locker, but life will surprise us all.

Mixed in with the rank, fetid ego are amusing indications that Yud gave very little thought to what Bayesian probability actually means. I find that entertaining.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Suppose you say that you’re 99.99% confident that 2 + 2 = 4.

Then you're a dillbrain.

Then you have just asserted that you could make 10,000 independent statements, in which you repose equal confidence, and be wrong, on average, around once. Maybe for 2 + 2 = 4 this extraordinary degree of confidence would be possible

Yes, how extraordinary that I can say every day that the guy in front of me at the bodega won't win the Powerball. Or that [SystemRandom().random() >= 0.9999 for i in range(10000)] makes a list that is False in all but one spot.

P(x|y) is defined as P(x,y)/P(y). P(A|A) is defined as P(A,A)/P(A) = P(A)/P(A) = 1. The ratio of these two probabilities may be 1, but I deny that there's any actual probability that's equal to 1. P(|) is a mere notational convenience, nothing more.

No, you kneebiter.

[–] titotal@awful.systems 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I roll a fair 100 sided dice.

Eliezer asks me to state my confidence that I won't roll a 1.

I say I am 99% confident I won't roll a 1, using basic math.

Eliezer says "AHA, you idiot, I checked all of your past predictions and when you predicted something with confidence 99%, it only happened 90% of the time! So you can't say you're 99% confident that you won't roll a 1"

I am impressed by the ability of my past predictions to affect the roll of a dice, and promptly run off to become a wizard.

[–] sailor_sega_saturn@awful.systems 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ah but the machine gods could be tinkering with your neural wiring to make you think you're rolling a die when in reality the universe is nothing but the color pink. That's right, reality is nothing but a shade of Fuchsia and dice don't actually exist. You should take this possibility into account when adjusting your priors for some reason.

Epistemic Status: Barbie.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 1 points 1 year ago

Whom the gods would destroy, they first make Barbie.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)