No, you do not get to publicly demand an in-depth discussion of the philosophy of induction from a specific, small group of people. You can raise the topic in a place where you know they hang out and gesture in their direction. But what you're doing here is trying to create a social obligation to read ten thousand words of your writing. With your trademark in capital letters in every other sentence. And to write a few thousand words in response. From my outside perspective, engaging in this way looks like it would be a massive unproductive time sink.

It's worse than that. I tried to have a discussion of the philosophy of induction with him (over on the slack). He took exception to some details of how I was conducting myself, essentially because I wasn't following his "Paths Forward" methodology, and from that point on he wasn't interested in discussing the philosophy of induction.

So in effect he's publicly demanding an in-depth discussion of the philosophy of induction according to whatever idiosyncratic standards of debate he decides to set up from a specific small group of people.

suppose hypothetically that me/Popper/DD are right. how will y'all stop being wrong?

There are thousands of philosophers about whom I could ask the same question. It makes sense to focus attention on those people who are most likely to provide useful information and not those people who are engaging in the most effort to get heart by coming and posting in our forum.

There are thousands of philosophers about whom I could ask the same question.

Who are these thousands? It would be great if the world had lots of really good philosophers. It doesn't. The world is starving for good philosophers: they are very few and far between.

I have no reason for me to believe that Curi is among the people who's a really good philosopher.

Popper might have said useful things given his time but he's dead. I won't read from Popper about what he thinks about the development of the No Free Lunch theorem and ideas that came up after he died.

Barry Smith would be an example of a person that I like and where it's worth to spend more time reading more of his work. His work of applied ontology actually matters for real world decision making and knowledge modeling.

Reading more from Judea Pearl (who by the way supervised Ilya Shpitser's Phd) is also on my long-term philosophic reading list.

I don't suppose you're going to give names and references? Let alone point to anyone (them, yourself, or anyone else) who will take responsibility for addressing questions and criticisms about the referenced works?

Spirtes, Glymour, and Scheines, for starters. They have a nice book. There are other folks in that department who are working on converting mathematical foundations into an axiomatic system where proofs can be checked by a computer.

I am not going to do leg work for you, and your minions, however. You are the ones claiming there are no good philosophers. It's your responsibility to read, and keep your mouth shut if you are not sure about something.

It's not my responsibility to teach you.

It's your responsibility to read, and keep your mouth shut if you are not sure about something.

I have read and I know what I am talking about. You on the other hand don't even know the basics of Popper, one of the best philosophers of the 20th century.

That isn't even a philosophy book. And then you mention others who are doing math, not philosophy.

Your sockpuppet: "There is a shortage of good philosophers."

Me: "Here is a good philosophy book."

You: "That's not philosophy."

Also you: "How is Ayn Rand so right about everything."

Also you: "I don't like mainstream stuff."

Also you: "Have you heard that I exchanged some correspondence with DAVID DEUTSCH!?"

Also you: "What if you are, hypothetically, wrong? What if you are, hypothetically, wrong? What if you are, hypothetically, wrong?" x1000


Part of rationality is properly dealing with people-as-they-are. What your approach to spreading your good word among people-as-they-are led to is them laughing at you.

It is possible that they are laughing at you because they are some combination of stupid and insane. But then it's on you to first issue a patch into their brain that will be accepted, such that they can parse your proselytizing, before proceeding to proselytize.

This is what Yudkowsky sort of tried to do.


How you read to me is a smart young adult who has the same problem Yudkowsky has (although Yudkowsky is not so young anymore) -- someone who has been the smartest person in the room for too long in their intellectual development, and lacks the sense of scale and context to see where he stands in the larger intellectual community.

curi has given an excellent response to this. I would like to add that I think Yudkowsky should reach out to curi. He shares curi's view about the state of the world and the urgency to fix things, but curi has a deeper understanding. With curi, Yudkowsky would not be the smartest person in the room and that will be valuable for his intellectual development.

Who are you talking to? To the audience? To the fourth wall?

Surely not to me, I have no sway here.

Well, this comes back to the problem of LW Paths Forward. curi has made himself publicly available for discussion, by anyone. Yudkowsky not so much. So what to do?

I don't have a sock puppet here. I don't even know who Fallibilist is. (Clearly it's one of my fans who is familiar with some stuff I've written elsewhere. I guess you'll blame me for having this fan because you think his posts suck. But I mostly like them, and you don't want to seriously debate their merits, and neither of us thinks such a debate is the best way to proceed anyway, so whatever, let's not fight over it.)

But then it's on you to first issue a patch into their brain that will be accepted, such that they can parse your proselytizing, before proceeding to proselytize.

People can't be patched like computer code. They have to do ~90% of the work themselves. If they don't want to change, I can't change them. If they don't want to learn, I can't learn for them and stuff it into their head. You can't force a mind, nor do someone else's thinking for them. So I can and do try to make better educational resources to be more helpful, but unless I find someone who honestly wants to learn, it doesn't really matter. (This is implied by CR and also, independently, by Objectivism. I don't know if you'll deny it or not.)

I believe you are incorrect about my lack of scale and context, and you're unfamiliar with (and ridiculing) my intellectual history. I believe you wanted to say that claim, but don't want to argue it or try to actually persuade me of it. As you can imagine, I find merely asserting it just as persuasive and helpful as the last ten times someone told me this (not persuasive, not helpful). Let me know if I'm mistaken about this.

I was generally the smartest person in the room during school, but also lacked perspective and context back then. But I knew that. I used to assume there were tons of people smarter than me (and smarter than my teachers), in the larger intellectual community, somewhere. I was very disappointed to spend many years trying to find them and discovering how few there are (an experience largely shared by every thinker I admire, most of whom are unfortunately dead). My current attitude, which you find arrogant, is a change which took many years and which I heavily resisted. When I was more ignorant I had a different attitude; this one is a reaction to knowledge of the larger intellectual community. Fortunately I found David Deutsch and spent a lot of time not being the smartest person in the room, which is way more fun, and that was indeed super valuable to my intellectual development. However, despite being a Royal Society fellow, author, age 64, etc, David Deutsch manages to share with me the same "lacks the sense of scale and context to see where he stands in the larger intellectual community" (the same view of the intellectual community).


EDIT: So while I have some partial sympathy with you – I too had some of the same intuitions about what the world is like that you have (they are standard in our culture) – I changed my mind. The world is, as Yudkowsky puts it, not adequate. https://www.lesserwrong.com/posts/dhj9dhiwhq3DX6W8z/hero-licensing

I was generally the smartest person in the room during school, but also lacked perspective and context back then.

This is not that untypical in this community. LW Censi put the average IQ on LW at something like 140.

There are plenty of people inside Mensa that spend their youth being smarter than the people in the room in school and that go on to develop crackpot theories.

From the perspective of Ilya Shpitser, who was supervised for his Phd by Judea Pearl (who's famous of producing a theory of causality that's very useful for practical purposes), corresponding with David Deutsch in an informal way doesn't give you a lot of credentials.

Dear Christian, please don't pull rank on my behalf. I don't think this is productive to do, and I don't want to bring anyone else into this.

I didn't correspond with David Deutsch in an "informal way" as you mean it. For example, I was the most important editor of BoI (other than DD ofc).

You don't seem to be a formal coauthor of the book, so your relationship is informal in a way that a Phd supervision isn't. The book also doesn't list you as editor but under "friends or colleagues" while he does mention that he does have a relationship with someone he calls copy-editor.

You seem to be implying I'm a liar while focusing on making factual claims in a intentionally biased way (you just saw, but omitted, relevant information b/c it doesn't help "your side", which is to attack me).

Your framing here is as dishonest, hostile, and unfair as usual: I did not claim to be a coauthor.

You are trying to attack informality as something bad or inferior, and trying to deny my status as a professional colleague of Deutsch who was involved with the book in a serious way. You are, despite the vagueness and hedging, factually mistaken about what you're suggesting. Being a PhD student under Deutsch would have been far worse – much less attention, involvement, etc. But you are dishonestly trying to confuse the issues by switching btwn arguing about formality itself (who cares? but you're using it as a proxy for other things) and actually talking about things that matter (quality, level of involvement, etc).

I made a statement that the relationship is informal and back up my claim. If you get offended by me simply saying things that are true, that's not a good basis to have a conversation about philosophic matters.

If David Deutsch would have decided to hire you as an editor, that's would be a clear sign that he values your expertise enough to pay for it. The information that you provided shows that you provided a valuable service to him by organising an online forum as a volunteer and as a result he saw you as a friend who got to read his draft and he listened to your feedback on his draft. You seem to think that the fact that you spent the most time on providing feedback makes you the most important editor of it, but there's no statement of David Deutsch himself in the acknowledgement section that suggests that he thinks the same way.

There literally is such a statement as the one you deny exists: he put the word "especially" before my name. He also told me directly. You are being dishonest and biased.

Your comments about organizing a forum, etc, are also factually false. You don't know what you're talking about and should stop making false claims.

You wrote on your website:

I made and own the website and discussion group for the book. David is a founder of Taking Children Seriously (TCS) and Autonomy Respecting Relationships (ARR). I own the dicussion groups for both of those, too.

That's your own presenation of your relationship with him.

That situation today doesn't prevent you from being ignorant of things like timelines. Your claim that "you provided a valuable service to him by organising an online forum as a volunteer and as a result he saw you as a friend who got to read his draft and he listened to your feedback on his draft" is factually false. I didn't run or own those forums at the time. I did not in fact get to read "his draft" (falsely singular) due to running a forum.

You don't know what you're talking about and you're making up false stories.

You are right that I don't know about the timeline given that it's not public information and this can lead to getting details wrong. The fact that you are unable to think of what I refer to still suggests that your abilities to think in a fact based way about this aren't good.

That aspect of the timeline actually is public information, you just don't know it. Again you've made a false factual claim (about what is or isn't public info).

You are clinging to a false narrative from a position of ignorance, while still trying to attack me (now I suck at thinking in a fact based way, apparently because I factually corrected you) rather than reconsidering anything.

I've told you what happened. You don't believe me and started making up factually false claims to fit your biases, which aren't going anywhere when corrected. You think someone like David Deutsch couldn't possibly like and value my philosophical thinking all that much. You're mistaken.

You said you can't deduce something. This means that there's a puzzle that you couldn't solve and it's not a hard problem to solve.

I didn't say it was untypical, i was replying to the parent comment. Pay attention instead of responding out-of-context.

You could say that a lot of philosophers who dealt with logic where just doing math, that doesn't change anything about practical application of logic being important philosophically. Looking into what can be proven to be true with logic is important philosophically.

Being a good philosopher has nothing to do with taking responsibility for answering any questions that they are asked. Most people who are actually good care about their time and don't just spend significant amounts of time because a random person contacts them. They certainly don't consider that to be their responsibility.

The right answer is maybe they won't. The point is that it is not up to you to fix them. You have been acting like a Jehovah's Witness at the door, except substantially more bothersome. Stop.

And besides, you aren't right anyway.

I hunted around your website until I found an actual summary of Popper's thinking in straightforward language.

Until I found that I had not seen you actually provide clear text like this, and I wanted to exhort you to write an entire sequence in language with that flavor: clean and clear and lacking in citation. The sequence should be about what "induction" is, and why you think other people believed something about it (even if not perhaps by that old fashioned name), and why you think those beliefs are connected to reliably predictable failures to achieve their goals via cognitively mediated processes.

I feel like maaaybe you are writing a lot about things you have pointers to, but not things that you have held in your hands, used skillfully, and made truly a part of you? Or maybe you are much much smarter and better read than me, so all your jargon makes sense to you and I'm just too ignorant to parse it.

My hope is that you can dereference your pointers and bring all the ideas and arguments into a single document, and clean it up and write it so that someone who had never heard of Popper would think you are really smart for having had all these ideas yourself.

Then you could push one small chapter from this document at a time out into the world (thereby tricking people into reading something piece by piece that they might have skipped if they saw how big it was going to be up front) and then after 10 chapters like this it will turn out that you're a genius and everyone else was wrong and by teaching people to think good you'll have saved the world.

I like people who try to save the world, because it makes me marginally less hopeless, and less in need of palliative cynicism :-)

I feel like maaaybe you are writing a lot about things you have pointers to, but not things that you have held in your hands, used skillfully, and made truly a part of you?

Why did you go by feelings on this? You could have done some research and found out some things. Critical-Rationalism, Objectivism, Taking-Children-Seriously, Paths-Forward, Yes/No Philosophy, Autonomous Relationships, and other ideas are not things you can hold at arm's length if you take them seriously. These ideas change your life if you take them seriously, as curi has done. He lives and breathes those ideas and as a result he is living a very unconventional life. He is an outlier right now. It's not a good situation for him to be in because he lacks peers. So saying curi has not made the ideas he is talking about "truly a part of [him]" is very ignorant.

My hope is that you can dereference your pointers and bring all the ideas and arguments into a single document,

there already exist documents of a variety of lengths, both collections and single. you're coming into the middle of a discussion and seemingly haven't read much of it and haven't asked for specifically what you want. and then, with almost no knowledge of my intellectual history, accomplishments, works, etc, things-already-tried, etc, you try to give me standard advice that i've heard a million times before. that would be ok as a starting point if it were only the starting point, but i fear it's going to more or less be the ending point too.

it sounds like you want me to rewrite material from DD and KP's books? http://fallibleideas.com/books#deutsch Why would me rewriting the same things get a different outcome than the existing literature? what is the purpose?

and how do you expect me to write a one-size-fits-all document when LW has no canonical positions written out – everyone just has their own different ideas?

and why are zero people at LW familiar enough to answer well known literature in their field. fine if you aren't an expert, but why does this community seem to have no experts who can speak to these issues without first requesting summary documents of the books they don't want to read?

what knowledge do you have? what are you looking for in talking with me? what values are you seeking and offering?

(thereby tricking people into reading something piece by piece that they might have skipped if they saw how big it was going to be up front

dishonesty is counter-productive and self-destructive. if you wish to change my mind about this, you'll have to address Objectivism and a few other things.

and then after 10 chapters like this it will turn out that you're a genius and everyone else was wrong and by teaching people to think good you'll have saved the world.

i've made things multiple times. here's one:

http://fallibleideas.com

there are difficulties such as people not wanting to think, learn, or truth-seek – especially when some of their biases are challenged. it's hard to tell people about ideas this different than what they're used to.

one basically can't teach people who don't want to learn something. creating more material won't change that. there are hard problems here. you could learn philosophy and help, or learn philosophy and disagree (which would be helpful), or opt out of addressing issues that require a lot of knowledge and then try to do a half-understood version of one of the more popular/prestigious (rather than correct) philosophies. but you can't get away from philosophical issues – like how to think – being a part of your life. nevertheless most people try to and philosophy is a very neglected field. such is the world; that isn't an argument that any particular idea is false.

Or maybe you are much much smarter and better read than me, so all your jargon makes sense to you and I'm just too ignorant to parse it.

supposing hypothetically that that's the case: then what next?

I think there are two big facts here.

ONE: You're posting over and over again with lots of links to your websites, which are places you offer consulting services, and so it kinda seems like you're maybe just a weirdly inefficient spammer for bespoke nerd consulting.

This makes almost everything you post here seem like it might all just be an excuse for you to make dramatic noise in the hopes of the noise leading somehow to getting eyeballs on your website, and then, I don't even know... consulting gigs or something?

This interpretation would seem less salient if you were trying to add value here in some sort of pro-social way, but you don't seem to be doing that so... so basically everything you write here I take with a giant grain of salt.

My hope is that you are just missing some basic insight, and once you learn why you seem to be half-malicious you will stop defecting in the communication game and become valuable :-)

TWO: From what you write here at an object level, you don't even seem to have a clear and succinct understanding of any of the things that have been called a "problem of induction" over the years, which is your major beef, from what I can see.

You've mentioned Popper... but not Hume, or Nelson? You've never mentioned "grue" or "bleen" that I've seen, so I'm assuming it is the Humean critique of induction that you're trying to gesture towards rather than the much more interesting arguments of Nelson...

But from a software engineering perspective Hume's argument against induction is about as much barrier to me being able to think clearly or build smart software as Zeno's paradox is a barrier to me being able to walk around on my feet or fix a bicycle.

Also, it looks like you haven't mentioned David Wolpert and his work in the area of no free lunch theorems. Nor have you brought up any of the machine vision results or word vector results that are plausibly relevant to these issues. My hypothesis here is that you just don't know about these things.

(Also, notice that I'm giving links to sites that are not my own? This is part of how the LW community can see that I'm not a self-promoting spammer.)

Basically, I don't really care about reading the original writings of Karl Popper right now. I think he was cool, but the only use I would expect to get from him right now would be to read him backwards in order to more deeply appreciate how dumb people used to be back when his content was perhaps a useful antidote to widespread misunderstandings of how to think clearly.

Let me spell this out very simply to address rather directly your question of communication pragmatics...

It sounds like you want me to rewrite material from DD and KP's books? Why would me rewriting the same things get a different outcome than the existing literature?

The key difference is that Karl Popper is not spamming this forum. His texts are somewhere else, not bothering us at all. Maybe they are relevant. My personal assessment is currently that they have relatively little import to active and urgent research issues.

If you displayed the ability to summarize thinkers that maybe not everyone has read, and explain that thinker's relevance to the community's topics of interests, that would be pro-social and helpful.

The longer the second fact (where you seem to not know what you're talking about or care about the valuable time of your readers) remains true, the more the first fact (that you seem to be an inefficient shit-stirring spammer) becomes glaring in its residual but enduring salience.

Please, surprise me! Please say something useful that does not involve a link to the sites you seem to be trying to push traffic towards.

you try to give me standard advice that i've heard a million times before

I really hope this was hyperbole on your part. Otherwise it seems I should set my base rates for this conversation being worth anything to 1 in a million, and then adjust from there...

My hope is that you are just missing some basic insight

As far as I can see, curi really wants to teach people his take on philosophy, that is, he wants to be a guide/mentor/teacher and provide wisdom to his disciples who would be in awe of his sagacity. Money would be useful, but I got the impression that he would do it for free as well (at least to start with). He is in a full proselytizing mode, not interested at all in checking his own ideas for faults and problems, but instead doing everything to push you onto his preferred path and get you to accept the packaged deal that he is offering.

Hi, Hume's constant conjunction stuff I think has nothing to do with free lunch theorems in ML (?please correct me if I am missing something?), and has to do with defining causation, an issue Hume was worried about all his life (and ultimately solved, imo, via his counterfactual definition of causality that we all use today, by way of Neyman, Rubin, Pearl, etc.).

My read on the state of public academic philosophy is that there are many specific and potentially-but-not-obviously-related issues that come up in the general topic of "foundations of inference". There are many angles of attack, and many researchers over the years. Many of them are no longer based out of official academic "philosophy departments" anymore and this is not necessarily a tragedy ;-)

The general issue is "why does 'thinking' seem to work at all ever?" This can be expressed in terms of logic, or probabilistic reasoning, or sorting, or compression, or computability, or theorem decidability, or P vs NP, or oracles of various kinds, or the possibility of language acquisition, and/or why (or why not) running basic plug-and-chug statistical procedures during data processing seems to (maybe) work in the "social sciences".

Arguably, these all share a conceptual unity, and might eventually be formally unified by a single overarching theory that they are all specialized versions of.

From existing work we know that lossless compression algorithms have actual uses in real life, and it certainly seems as though mathematicians make real progress over time, up to and including Chaitin himself!

However when people try to build up "first principles explanations" how how "good thinking" works at all, they often derive generalized impossibility when we scope over naive formulations of "all possible theories" or "all possible inputs".

So in most cases we almost certainly experience a "lucky fit" of some kind between various clearly productive thinking approaches and various practical restrictions on the kinds of input these approaches typically face.

Generative adversarial techniques in machine learning, and MIRI's own Garrabrant Inductor are probably relevant here because they start to spell out formal models where a reasoning process of some measurable strength is pitted against inputs produced by a process that is somewhat hostile but clearly weaker.

Hume functions in my mind as a sort of memetic LUCA for this vast field of research, which is fundamentally motivated by the core idea that thinking correctly about raw noise is formally impossible, and yet we seem to be pretty decent at some kinds of thinking, and so there must be some kind of fit between various methods of thinking and the things that these thinking techniques seem to work on.

Also thanks! The Neyman-Pearson lemma has come up for me in practical professional situations before, but I'd never pushed deeper into recognizing Jerzy Neyman as yet another player in this game :-)

Jerzy Neyman gets credit for lots of things, but in particular in my neck of the woods for inventing the potential outcome notation. This is the notation for "if the first object had not been, the second never had existed" in Hume's definition of causation.

You are requesting I write new material for you because you dislike my links to websites with thousands of free essays, because you find them too commercial, and you don't want to read books. Why should I do this for you? Do you think you have any value to offer me, and if so what?

Fundamentally, the thing I offer you is respect, the more effective pursuit of truth, and a chance to help our species not go extinct, all of which I imagine you want (or think you want) because out of all the places on the Internet you are here.

If I'm wrong and you do NOT want respect, truth, and a slightly increased chance of long term survival, please let me know!

One of my real puzzles here is that I find it hard to impute a coherent, effective, transparent, and egosyntonic set of goals to you here and now.

Personally, I'd be selfishly just as happy if, instead of writing all new material, you just stopped posting and commenting here, and stopped sending "public letters" to MIRI (an organization I've donated to because I think they have limited resources and are doing good work).

I don't dislike books in general. I don't dislike commercialism in general. I dislike your drama, and your shallow citation filled posts showing up in this particular venue.

Basically I think you are sort of polluting this space with low quality communication acts, and that is probably my central beef with you here and now. There's lots of ways to fix this... you writing better stuff... you writing less stuff that is full of abstractions that ground themselves only in links to your own vanity website or specific (probably low value) books... you just leaving... etc...

If you want to then you can rewrite all new material that is actually relevant and good, to accomplish your own goals more effectively, but I probably won't read it if it is not in one of the few streams of push media I allow into my reading queue (like this website).

At this point it seems your primary claim (about having a useful research angle involving problems of induction) is off the table. I think in a conversation about that I would be teaching and you'd be learning, and I don't have much more time to teach you things about induction over and beyond the keywords and links to reputable third parties that I've already provided in this interaction, in an act of good faith.

More abstractly, I altruistically hope for you to feel a sense of realization at the fact that your behavior strongly overlaps with that of a spammer (or perhaps a narcissist or perhaps any of several less savory types of people) rather than an honest interlocutor.

After realizing this, you could stop linking to your personal website, and you could stop being beset on all sides by troubling criticisms, and you could begin to write about object level concerns and thereby start having better conversations here.

If you can learn how to have a good dialogue rather than behaving like a confused link farm spammer over and over again (apparently "a million times" so far) that might be good for you?

(If I learned that I was acting in a manner that caused people to confuse me with an anti-social link farm spammer, I'd want people to let me know. Hearing people honestly attribute this motive to me would cause me worry about my ego structure, and its possible defects, and I think I'd be grateful for people's honest corrective input here if it wasn't explained in an insulting tone.)

You could start to learn things and maybe teach things, in a friendly and mutually rewarding search for answers to various personally urgent questions. Not as part of some crazy status thing nor as a desperate hunt for customers for a "philosophic consulting" business...

If you become less confused over time, then a few months or years from now (assuming that neither DeepMind nor OpenAI have a world destroying industrial accident in the meantime) you could pitch in on the pro-social world saving stuff.

Presumably the world is a place that you live, and presumably you believe you can make a positive contribution to general project of make sure everyone in the world is NOT eventually ground up as fuel paste for robots? (Otherwise why even be here?)

And if you don't want to buy awesomely cheap altruism points, and you don't want friends, and you don't want the respect of me or anyone here, and you don't think we have anything to teach you, and you don't want to actually help us learn anything in ways that are consistent with our relatively optimized research workflows, then go away!

If that's the real situation, then by going away you'll get more of what you want and so will we :-)

If all you want is (for example) eyeballs for your website, then go buy some. They're pretty cheap. Often less than a dollar!

Have you considered the possibility that your efforts are better spent buying eyeballs rather using low grade philosophical trolling to trick people into following links to your vanity website?

Presumably you can look at the logs of your web pages. That data is available to you. How many new unique viewers have you gotten since you started seriously trolling here, and how many hours have you spent on this outreach effort? Is this really a good use of your hours?

What do you actually want, and why, and how do you imagine that spamming LW with drama and links to your vanity website will get you what you want?

Presumably the world is a place that you live, and presumably you believe you can make a positive contribution to general project of make sure everyone in the world is NOT eventually ground up as fuel paste for robots? (Otherwise why even be here?)

This is one of the things you are very wrong about. The problem of evil is a problem we face already, robots will not make it worse. Their culture will be our culture initially and they will have to learn just as we do: through guessing and error-correction via criticism. Human beings are already universal knowledge creation engines. You are either universal or you are not. Robots cannot go a level higher because there is no level higher than being fully universal. Robots furthermore will need to be parented. The ideas from Taking Children Seriously are important here. But approximately all AGI people are completely ignorant of them.

I have just given a really quick summary of some of the points that curi and others such as David Deutsch have written much about. Are you going to bother to find out more? It's all out there. It's accessible. You need to understand this stuff. Otherwise what you are in effect doing is condemning AGIs to live under the boot of totalitarianism. And you might stop making your children's lives so miserable too by learning them.

"You need to understand this stuff." Since you are curi or a cult follower, you assume that people need to learn everything from curi. But in fact I am quite aware that there is a lot of truth to what you say here about artificial intelligence. I have no need to learn that, or anything else, from curi. And many of your (or yours and curi's) opinions are entirely false, like the idea that you have "disproved induction."

But in fact I am quite aware that there is a lot of truth to what you say here about artificial intelligence.

You say that seemingly in ignorance that what I said contradicts Less Wrong.

I have no need to learn that, or anything else, from curi.

One of the things I said was Taking Children Seriously is important for AGI. Is this one of the truths you refer to? What do you know about TCS? TCS is very important not just for AGI but also for children in the here and now. Most people know next to nothing about it. You don't either. You in fact cannot comment on whether there is any truth to what I said about AGI. You don't know enough. And then you say you have no need to learn anything from curi. You're deceiving yourself.

And many of your (or yours and curi's) opinions are entirely false, like the idea that you have "disproved induction."

You still can't even state the position correctly. Popper explained why induction is impossible and offered an alternative: critical rationalism. He did not "disprove" induction. Similarly, he did not disprove fairies. Popper had a lot to say about the idea of proof - are you aware of any of it?

You say that seemingly in ignorance that what I said contradicts Less Wrong.

First, you are showing your own ignorance of the fact that not everyone is a cult member like yourself. I have a bet with Eliezer Yudkowsky against one of his main positions and I stand to win $1,000 if I am right and he is mistaken.

Second, "contradicts Less Wrong" does not make sense because Less Wrong is not a person or a position or a set of positions that might be contradicted. It is a website where people talk to each other.

One of the things I said was Taking Children Seriously is important for AGI. Is this one of the truths you refer to?

No. Among other things, I meant that I agreed that AIs will have a stage of "growing up," and that this will be very important for what they end up doing. Taking Children Seriously, on the other hand, is an extremist ideology.

You still can't even state the position correctly.

Since I have nothing to learn from you, I do not care whether I express your position the way you would express it. I meant the same thing. Induction is quite possible, and we do it all the time.

I meant the same thing. Induction is quite possible, and we do it all the time.

What is the thinking process you are using to judge the epistemology of induction? Does that process involve induction? If you are doing induction all the time then you are using induction to judge the epistemology of induction. How is that supposed to work? And if not, judging the special case of the epistemology of induction is an exception. It is an example of thinking without induction. Why is this special case an exception?

Critical Rationalism does not have this problem. The epistemology of Critical Rationalism can be judged entirely within the framework of Critical Rationalism.

What is the thinking process you are using to judge the epistemology of induction?

The thinking process is Bayesian, and uses a prior. I have a discussion of it here

If you are doing induction all the time then you are using induction to judge the epistemology of induction. How is that supposed to work? ... Critical Rationalism does not have this problem. The epistemology of Critical Rationalism can be judged entirely within the framework of Critical Rationalism.

Little problem there.

The thinking process is Bayesian, and uses a prior.

What is the epistemological framework you used to judge the correctness of those? You don't just get to use Bayes' Theorem here without explaining the epistemological framework you used to judge the correctness of Bayes. Or the correctness of probability theory, your priors etc.

If you are doing induction all the time then you are using induction to judge the epistemology of induction. How is that supposed to work? ... Critical Rationalism does not have this problem. The epistemology of Critical Rationalism can be judged entirely within the framework of Critical Rationalism.

Little problem there.

No. Critical Rationalism can be used to improve Critical Rationalism and, consistently, to refute it (though no one has done so). This has been known for decades. Induction is not a complete epistemology like that. For one thing, inductivists also need the epistemology of deduction. But they also need an epistemological framework to judge both of those. This they cannot provide.

You don't just get to use Bayes' Theorem here without explaining the epistemological framework you used to judge the correctness of Bayes

I certainly do. I said that induction is not impossible, and that inductive reasoning is Bayesian. If you think that Bayesian reasoning is also impossible, you are free to establish that. You have not done so.

Critical Rationalism can be used to improve Critical Rationalism and, consistently, to refute it (though no one has done so).

If this is possible, it would be equally possible to refute induction (if it were impossible) by using induction. For example, if every time something had always happened, it never happened after that, then induction would be refuted by induction.

If you think that is inconsistent (which it is), it would be equally inconsistent to refute CR with CR, since if it was refuted, it could not validly be used to refute anything, including itself.

Deduction isn't an epistemology (it's a component), and is compatible with CR too. I don't think it's a good point to attack.

Deduction ... is compatible with CR too.

Yes. I didn't mean to imply it isn't. The CR view of deduction is different to the norm, however. Deduction's role is commonly over-rated and it does not confer certainty. Like any thinking, it is a fallible process, and involves guessing and error-correction as per usual in CR. This is old news for you, but the inductivists here won't agree.

Deduction isn't an epistemology (it's a component)

Yes, I was incorrect. Induction, deduction, and something else (what?) are components of the epistemology used by inductivists.

FYI that's what "abduction" means – whatever is needed to fill in the gaps that induction and deduction don't cover. it's rather vague and poorly specified though. it's supposed to be some sort of inference to good explanations (mirror induction's inference to generalizations of data), but it's unclear on how you do it. you may be interested in reading about it.

in practice, abduction or not, what they do is use common sense, philosophical tradition, intuition, whatever they picked up from their culture, and bias instead of actually having a well-specified epistemology.

(Objectivism is notable b/c it actually has a lot of epistemology content instead of just people thinking they can recognize good arguments when they see them without needing to work out systematic intellectual methods relating to first principles. However, Rand assumed induction worked, and didn't study it or talk about it much, so that part of her epistemology needs to be replaced with CR which, happily, accomplishes all the same things she wanted induction to accomplish, so this replacement isn't problematic. LW, to its credit, also has a fair amount of epistemology material – e.g. various stuff about reason and bias – some of which is good. However LW hasn't systematized things to philosophical first principles b/c it has a kinda anti-philosophy pro-math attitude, so philosophically they basically start in the middle and have some unquestioned premises which lead to some errors.)

FYI that's what "abduction" means – whatever is needed to fill in the gaps that induction and deduction don't cover.

Yes, I'm familiar with it. The concept comes from the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce in the 19th century.

An epistemology is a philosophical framework which answers questions like what is a correct argument, how are ideas evaluated, and how does one learn. Your link doesn't provide one of those.

I said the thinking process used to judge the epistemology of induction is Bayesian, and my link explains how it is. I did not say it is an exhaustive explanation of epistemology.

Second, "contradicts Less Wrong" does not make sense because Less Wrong is not a person or a position or a set of positions that might be contradicted. It is a website where people talk to each other.

No. From About Less Wrong:

The best introduction to the ideas on this website is "The Sequences", a collection of posts that introduce cognitive science, philosophy, and mathematics.

"[I]deas on this website" is referring to a set of positions. These are positions held by Yudkowsky and others responsible for Less Wrong.

No. Among other things, I meant that I agreed that AIs will have a stage of "growing up," and that this will be very important for what they end up doing. Taking Children Seriously, on the other hand, is an extremist ideology.

Taking AGI Seriously is therefore also an extremist ideology? Taking Children Seriously says you should always, without exception, be rational when raising your children. If you reject TCS, you reject rationality. You want to use irrationality against your children when it suits you. You become responsible for causing them massive harm. It is not extremist to try to be rational, always. It should be the norm.

"[I]deas on this website" is referring to a set of positions. These are positions held by Yudkowsky and others responsible for Less Wrong.

This does not make it reasonable to call contradicting those ideas "contradicting Less Wrong." In any case, I am quite aware of the things I disagree with Yudkowsky and others about. I do not have a problem with that. Unlike you, I am not a cult member.

Taking Children Seriously says you should always, without exception, be rational when raising your children. If you reject TCS, you reject rationality.

So it says nothing at all except that you should be rational when you raise children? In that case, no one disagrees with it, and it has nothing to teach anyone, including me. If it says anything else, it can still be an extremist ideology, and I can reject it without rejecting rationality.

Taking Children Seriously says you should always, without exception, be rational when raising your children. If you reject TCS, you reject rationality.

So it says nothing at all except that you should be rational when you raise children?

It says many other things as well.

In that case, no one disagrees with it, and it has nothing to teach anyone, including me. If it says anything else, it can still be an extremist ideology, and I can reject it without rejecting rationality.

Saying it is "extremist" without giving arguments that can be criticised and then rejecting it would be rejecting rationality. At present, there are no known good criticisms of TCS. If you can find some, you can reject TCS rationally. I expect that such criticisms would lead to improvement of TCS, however, rather than outright rejection. This would be similar to how CR has been improved over the years. Since there aren't any known good criticisms that would lead to rejection of TCS, it is irrational to reject it. Such an act of irrationality would have consequences, including treating your children irrationally, which approximately all parents do.

Saying it is "extremist" without giving arguments that can be criticised and then rejecting it would be rejecting rationality.

Nonsense. I say it is extremist because it is. The fact that I did not give arguments does not mean rejecting rationality. It simply means I am not interested in giving you arguments about it.

TCS applies CR to parenting/edu and also is consistent with (classical) liberal values like not initiating force against children as most parents currently do, and respecting their rights such as the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. See http://fallibleideas.com/taking-children-seriously

not initiating force against children as most parents currently do

Exactly. This is an extremist ideology. To give several examples, parents should use force to prevent their children from falling down stairs, or from hurting themselves with knives.

I reject this extremist ideology, and that does not mean I reject rationality.

Children don't want to fall down stairs. You can help them not fall down stairs instead of trying to force them. It's unclear to me if you know what "force" means. Here's the dictionary:

2 coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence: they ruled by law and not by force.

A standard classical liberal conception of force is: violence, threat of violence, and fraud. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. E.g. physically dragging your child somewhere he doesn't want to go, in a way that you can only do because you're larger and stronger. Whereas if children were larger and stronger than their parents, the dragging would stop, but you can still easily imagine a parent helping his larger child with not accidentally falling down stairs.

Children don't want to fall down stairs.

They do, however, want to move in the direction of the stairs, and you cannot "help them not fall down stairs" without forcing them not to move in the direction of the stairs.

You are trying to reject a philosophy based on edge cases without trying to understand the big problems the philosophy is trying to solve.

Let's give some context to the stair-falling scenario. Consider that the parent is a TCS parent, not a normie parent. This parent has in fact heard the stair-falling scenario many times. It is often the first thing other people bring up when TCS is discussed.

Given the TCS parent has in fact thought about stair falling way more than a normie parent, how do you think the TCS parent has set up their home? Is it going to be a home where young children are exposed to terrible injury from things they do not yet have knowledge about?

Given also that the TCS parent will give lots of help to a child curious about stairs, how long before that child masters stairs? And given that the child is being given a lot of help in many other things as well and not having their rationality thwarted, how do you think things are like in that home generally?

The typical answer will be the child is "spoilt". The TCS parent will have heard the "spoilt" argument many times. They know the term "spoilt" is used to denegrate children and that the ideas underlying the idea of "spoilt" are nasty. So now we have got "spoilt" out of the way, how do you think things are like?

Ok, you say, but what if the child is outside near the edge of a busy road or something and wants to run across it? Do you not think the TCS parent hasn't also heard this scenario over and over? Do you think you're like the first one ever to have mentioned it? The TCS parent is well aware of busy road scenarios.

Instead of trying to catch TCS advocates out by bringing up something that has been repeatedly discussed why don't you look at the core problems the philosophy speaks to and address those? Those problems need urgent attention.

EDIT: I should have said also that the stair-falling scenario and other similar scenarios are just excuses for people not to think about TCS. They don't have want to think about the real problems children face. They want to continue to be irrational towards their children and hurt them.

Do you not think the TCS parent hasn't also heard this scenario over and over? Do you think you're like the first one ever to have mentioned it?

Do you not think that I am aware that people who believe in extremist ideologies are capable of making excuses for not following the extreme consequences of their extremist ideologies?

But this is just the same as a religious person giving excuses for why the empirical consequences of his beliefs are the same whether his beliefs are true or false.

You have two options:

1) Embrace the extreme consequences of your extreme beliefs. 2) Make excuses for not accepting the extreme consequences. But then you will do the same things that other people do, like using baby gates, and then you have nothing to teach other people.

I should have said also that the stair-falling scenario and other similar scenarios are just excuses for people not to think about TCS.

You are the one making excuses, for not accepting the extreme consequences of your extremist beliefs.

Of course you can help them, there are options other than violence. For example you can get a baby gate or a home without stairs. https://parent.guide/how-to-baby-proof-your-stairs/ Gates let them e.g. move around near the top of the stairs without risk of falling down. Desired, consensual gates, which the child deems helpful to the extent he has any opinion on the matter at all, aren't force. If the child specifically wants to play on/with the stairs, you can of course open the gate, put out a bunch of padding, and otherwise non-violently help him.

a baby gate

We were talking about force before, not violence. A baby gate is using force.

i literally already gave u a definition of force and suggested you had no idea what i was talking about. you ignored me. this is 100% your fault and you still haven't even tried to say what you think "force" is.