That doesn't lower the pre-study prior for hypotheses, it (in combination with reporting bias) reduces the likelihood ratio a reported study gives you for the reported hypothesis.
Respectfully disagree. The ability to cheaply test hypotheses allows researchers to be less discriminating. They can check a correlation on a whim. Or just check every possible combination of parameters simply because they can. And they do.
That is very different from selecting a hypothesis out of the space of all possible hypotheses because it's an intuitive extension of some mental model. And I think it absolutely reduces the pre-study priors for hypotheses, which impacts the output signal even if no QRPs are used.
A fundamental problem seems to be that there is a lower prior for any given hypothesis, driven by the increased number of researchers, use of automation, and incentive to go hypothesis-fishing.
Wouldn't a more direct solution be to simply increase the significance threshold required in the field?
Fair enough. It is definitely a bit of a turn-off to get downvotes with no comments, but every community has their common ways of communicating.
It definitely seems like Main is an announcement section for meetups, and Discussion is where discussions happen.
I'll check out some of Luke's articles!
For me, (1) and (2) are linked. I dabbled on LW, and presented some of my own ideas in the comments sections. None of them piqued anyone's interest, even if they were on pillar topics like FAI. I stopped being interested in LW, because:
I don't just come to a site like LW to self-improve. I... (read more)
Humans act within shared social and physical worlds, but tend to treat the latter as more "real" than the former. A danger of anthropomorphizing AI is that we assume that it will have the same perceptions of reality, and that it needs to "escape" into the physical world to optimize its heuristics. This seems odd, since a superintelligent AI that we need to be concerned about would have its roots in social world heuristics.
In trying to avoid anthrophomorphizing algorithms, we tend to under-estimate how difficult movement and action in physical space are. Thought experiments about a "human in a box" already start from a being that has evolved to physically interact... (read 463 more words →)
This came off as Meta-Contrarian Intellectual Hipster to me.
Many religions are highly reflective, debating what actions adherents should follow to achieve ethical ideals and reach a moral state of being. Zen Buddhism debates paths to enlightenment for universal understanding and emotional control. Judaism debates ways of giving Tzedakah to best provide immediate relief, encourage self improvement, and minimize shame. Hinduism debates various moral causes and their karmic effects. Examining any of these highly reflective religions would at least address the hypothesis that "reflection does not change values."
Christianity debates the divinity of Jesus' body, whether the material universe is fundamentally evil, and whether the Son of God is subordinate to God.... (read more)
Some Examples:
Temple Judaism - Moral Development
While emotionless ethical codes tend to be ineffective, morals can and have been engineered. This is done by careful manipulation of the binding layers.
The "Ten Commandments" by itself is a prescriptive set of Ethics. The story of "Moses bringing the Ten Commandments" is a binding mechanism for that set of tenets, including an appeal to emotion (fear of God's wrath, as demonstrated in the story). Additional stories highlight each commandment, binding them with references to positive and negative emotions. The Torah as a revered source of stories packages these stories and adds another layer of binding with meta-stories about its own origin.
The document is considered a... (read 902 more words →)
I think there are two steps to morality engineering, either of which can fail:
You say neither has happened; I disagree on both, but I'll limit this post to the second question on "binding." I use the following definitions - they may not be correct or universal, but they should be internally consistent:
Evolution... (read 613 more words →)
One of the obstacles I faced when first confronted with the Sequences was figuring out the prerequisites for any given post. At times this is spelled out explicitly, but there are many parallel paths and cross-referencing. Another problem was that posts don't link forward to the posts that reference them.
TrailMeme lets you "blaze a trail" through a mass of blog posts by creating a directed graph, which other users can then "walk." The site is still in Beta, and can be unstable at times.
I tried to more or less follow the posted pre-requisites and link-backs, but culled a lot of the redundant ones to reduce confusion. I found one pre-existing trail, and invite anyone with free time to contribute! Trails so far:
This implies that the average prior for a medical study is below 5%. Does he make that point in the book? Obviously you shouldn't use a 95% test when your prior is that low, but I don't think most experimenters actually know why a 95% confidence level is used.