AnthonyRepetto

Ah, first: you DID claim that I "didn't provide specific, uncontroversial examples" and I HAD given such for why Bayes' Theorem is inadequate. Notice that you made your statement in this context:

<<"Bayes is persistently wrong" - about what, exactly?

Content like this should include specific, uncontroversial examples>>

In that context, where you precede "this" with my statement about Bayes, I naturally took "content like this" to be referring to my statement that "Bayes is persistently wrong." I hope you can see how easy it would be for me to conclude such a thing, considering "this" refers to... the prior statement?

You now move your goal-posts by insisting that my statement "Rationalists repeatedly rely upon sparse... (read 354 more words →)

Replying toBayes is Out-Dated, and You’re Doing it Wrong

"Content like this should include specific, uncontroversial examples of all the claimed intellectual bankruptcy, and not include a bunch of random (and wrong) snipes."

I did in fact include empirical metrics of Dirichlet's superiority and how Bayes' Theorem fails in contrast: industry uses it, after they did their own tests, which is empiricism at work. I also showed how Dirichlet Process allows you to compute Confidence Intervals, while Bayes' Theorem is incapable of computing Confidence Intervals. I also explained how, due to the median of the likelihood function being closer to an equal distribution than Bayes would expect, Bayes is persistently biased toward whichever extrema might be observed in the sample. Thus, Bayes'... (read more)

-1

-2

Replying toBayes is Out-Dated, and You’re Doing it Wrong

No, I write articles in various newsletters. I wrote an article ABOUT your community. I shared that article here, not for your pleasure or personal growth. You're an adult; check reality by seeing if industry uses Bayes' Theorem the way Scott Alexander and Eliezer Yudkowski do. That's the work you are responsible as an adult, before you go around claiming that you're doing the best job at finding truth, when Bayes' Theorem can't even give you a Confidence Interval.

-5

-2

Replying toBayes is Out-Dated, and You’re Doing it Wrong

The way you derive a confidence interval is by assessing the likelihood function, which is across the distribution of populations. Bayes' Theorem, as presented by Scott Alexander and Eliezer Yudkowski, does NOT include those tools; you can't use what they present to derive an actual confidence interval. Your claim of 'confidence' on a prediction market is NOT the same as Dirichlet saying "95% of the possible populations' likelihood MASS lies within these bounds." THAT is a precise and valuable fact which "Bayes as presented to Rationalists" does NOT have the power to derive.

-1

Replying toBayes is Out-Dated, and You’re Doing it Wrong

Erm, you are demonstrating that same issue I pointed-out originally: you thinking that you have the right answer, after only a wiki page, is exactly the Dunning-Kreuger Effect. You're evidence of my argument, now.

-2

-1

Replying toBayes is Out-Dated, and You’re Doing it Wrong

Screenshots are up! I'll be glad when more members of the public see the arguments you give for ignoring mine. :P cheers!

-1

Replying toBayes is Out-Dated, and You’re Doing it Wrong

Wait. Let me see if I've got the core points:

"I don't need to engage with Anthony's arguments unless he presents them to my satisfaction."

AND

"No one on Earth has ever presented Bayes to my satisfaction."

If NO ONE has EVER presented that information to your satisfaction, it would be daft to assume I would accomplish such a feat! You have such high standards as a pre-requisite to your engagement, that by your OWN admission, NO ONE in history has ever MET your standard! Why bother telling me all this? I didn't share the post to convince or proselytize - as I said in the intro, I am only sharing this on your site as... (read more)

-5

Replying toBayes is Out-Dated, and You’re Doing it Wrong

Astounding! Then my argument that "NOT including Dirichlet is wrong" must have been wrong? Or else, why are you mentioning that no one taught you to your own satisfaction?

Replying toBayes is Out-Dated, and You’re Doing it Wrong

Your difficulty understanding it is NOT equivalent to "no one has ever laid them out". Those are two wildly different statements. A dyslexic person would have similar difficulty reading a novel, yet that is NOT equal to "no one ever wrote a book."

-3

Replying toBayes is Out-Dated, and You’re Doing it Wrong

Then why does industry use Dirichlet, not Bayes? You keep pretending yours is better, when everyone who has to publish physics used additional methods, from this century. None of you explain why industry would use Dirichlet, if Bayes is superior. Further, why would Dirichlet even be PUBLISHED unless it's an improvement? You completely disregard these blinding facts. More has happened in the last 260 years than just Bayes' Theorem, and your suspicion of the FDA doesn't change that fact.

-3

-4

O(“AGI Safety”)>O(“Stop Tyrants”)

AnthonyRepetto, RobertM

~ a community of Bayes-enthusiasts fumble statistical inference ~

TL;DR — Industry uses Dirichlet Process and SAS, NOT Bayes. Bayes is persistently *wrong* and lacks a great deal of important information. Supposed ‘rationalists’ cling to Bayes as the Ultimate Truth, without knowing enough Mathematics to know they’re wrong.

“Oh, well my Prior was <preferred assumption> but I guess I have to update with that one data-point that wandered into my life.” — multiple ‘Rationalists’ in my year of invading their gatherings

A weird thing is happening in the Bay Area, slowly creeping into the Zeitgeist: a group of non-mathematicians have decided they found the BEST... (read 1114 more words →)

-45

Sail Over Mountains of ICE...

~ AGI safety is at LEAST as hard as a protocol which prevents tyranny ~

When we want to keep ourselves safe from AGI, then one of the key criteria is “can we turn it off if it tries to go berserk?” That is the same requirement whenever we put some person in charge of an entire government: “can we depose this person, without them using the military to stop us?”

AGI has extra risks and problems, being super-intelligent, while most dictators are morons. Yet, if someone told me “we solved AGI safety!” then I would happily announce “then you’ve also solved protecting-governments-from-dictators!” You might be able to avoid all dictators in a way... (read more)

-4

The Case for Chip-Backed Dollars

~ constant winds carry ships FAST on Arctic ice-highways, easily made! ~

TL;DR — Ice Ships are frickin’ insane. With a mast and sail, a wide flat body, and innumerable skates, these sailboats are able to haul tonnage across frozen lakes and glaciers at up to 85 miles per hour! They regularly attain 5x wind-speeds; an 8mph breeze across the North shores of Canada and Russia would propel huge fleets 40mph with NO FUEL. An Ice-HIGHWAY covering the beaches of the Arctic shores could replace much of international shipping! Get rid of that huge fuel-cost, AND go carbon-neutral. All while traveling more than TWICE the speed of normal container ships, along a route... (read 1894 more words →)

Make the Drought Evaporate!

~ NOT crypto-dollars; actual computer chips = dollars ~

TL;DR — A currency is ‘backed’ by the thing you get for it when you hand-in your dollar to the bank. It used to be that you could go to the bank with your paper dollar, which was really just a *receipt* for your REAL dollar — a SILVER coin at the bank. You could hand-in the paper, and get the real silver dollar back. That is a ‘silver-backed’ currency; same for gold. Currently, the dollar is backed by NOTHING, which is bad for us. Instead, we could let each paper dollar be the receipt for a computer chip held at a Server Bank.... (read 1124 more words →)

~ desalinate with <5% the energy & equipment ~

TL;DR — We need to stop droughts, especially as climate change makes them worse. Desalination is nice, capturing clean water from the sea, yet it requires expensive equipment and lots and lots of energy. We can, instead, accelerate evaporation OUT into the air above our heads! We won’t be ‘capturing’ that clean water — it just rains-down miles away. Perfect, because we don’t need pipes and pumps to transport it! Using this sort of design, we can end droughts and re-take the land captured by deserts in recent decades, cheaply and quickly.

The Concept

Imagine you have a bowl of salty sea water, with a tiny... (read 893 more words →)

A Poem for S.B.F.

"AGI soon, but Narrow works Better"

~ and a place to add your own verse of wit! ~

An Ode to the Venerable Sir Scam Bankrun-Fraud, the elder:

Have you heard the name renowned?

A phrase we say

To allay sway

Of FUDster, huckster-clowns?

Scam Bankrun-Fraud!

Scam Bankrun-Fraud:

Got Sequoia

On a gank,

Contumely -

Scam Bankrun-Fraud

Was Knighted by

Elizabeth,

posthumously!

Making ‘empty boxes’ money

Never seemed too grand,

Though Scam B.F.

And Derp Island

Had a plan at hand!

Scam proved G-2 Muons

Would sell a ten-percent-rate

In all the parallel multiverses

That he could contemplate!

A Ponzi tall as Babel,

For cryptoadies in the scrabble

In the dust of lust for risk -

Let’s drink a glass to his:

Scam Bankrun-Fraud!

Scam Bankrun-Fraud,

A million memers strong,

Scam Bankrun-Fraud, Scam Bankrun-Fraud,

A head of lettuce long!

Recite the Carol of the Age,

LARPer Dryads’ naively-brave

Incantation Coda:

“Better luck next time,

Robinhoodawouldacoulda!”

<reply with your own verses!>

-30