User Profile


Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Personal Blogposts
personPersonal blogposts by LessWrong users (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

No posts to display.

Recent Comments

I just want to point out some nuiances.

1) The divide between your so called "old CS" and "new CS" is more of a divide (or perhaps a continuum) between engineers and theorists. The former is concerned with on-the-ground systems, where quadratic time algorithms are costly and statistics is the bette...(read more)

> There is difference between "having an idea" and "solid theoretical foundations". Chemists before quantum mechanics had a lots of ideas. But they didn't have a solid theoretical foundation.

That's a bad example. You are essentially asking researchers to predict what they will discover 50 years do...(read more)

I think you are overhyping the PAC model. It surely is an important foundation for probabilistic guarantees in machine learning, but there are some serious limitations when you want to use it to constrain something like an AGI:

1. It only deals with supervised learning

2. Simple things like finite...(read more)

I would definitely recommend learning basics of algorithms, feasibility (P vs NP), or even computability (halting problem, Godel's incompleteness, etc). They will change your worldview significantly.

[CLRS]( more)

Yes, so the exact definition of "have-to" and "want-to" already present some difficulties in pinpointing what exact the theory says.

In my personal experience, it's not so much "fear" than fatigue and frustration. I also don't feel that my desire to read reduces; it stays intense, but my brain just...(read more)

I can see this theory working in several scenarios, despite (or perhaps rather *because of*) the relative fuzziness of its description (which is of course the norm in psychological theories so far). However I have personal experiences that at least at face value don't seem to be able to be explained...(read more)

I bought [these]( with a [4 socket adapter]( However, I think my lamp can't power them all. Does anyone know a higher output lamp?

Actually I'...(read more)

>I'm going out on a limb on this one, but since the whole universe includes separate branching “worlds”, and over time this means we have more worlds now than 1 second ago, and since the worlds can interact with each other, how does this not violate conservation of mass and energy?

The "number"...(read more)

> In contrast with the title, you did not show that the MWI is falsifiable nor testable.

I agree that he didn't show testable, but rather the possibility of it (and the formalization of it).

> You just showed that MWI is "better" according to your "goodness" index, but that index is not so good ...(read more)