Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

slatestarcodex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

#81

Post by ajuc »

marcosdumay wrote: post #69
ajuc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, if you want to do it right, you don't just "not discuss" the orthodoxy, you go out of your way to make discussing the orthodoxy very clearly forbidden on the research circle. Nah. That makes it a forbidden fruit attracting rebellious youth like nothing else. I've seen it happen in communist Poland regarding the Katyń massacre for example. You don't outright say "we don't talk about Katyń here" - that would ju…

You seem to be talking from the point of view of the powerful people that created the orthodoxy. If you are pulling a Kolmogorov, it's because you have no attachment at all to the orthodoxy, and you'd prefer nobody to believe on it.

Ah, I didn't realized you were talking from Kolmogorov POV. I don't think exposing the censorship explicitly would be good for his career. Better to explain it to colleagues privately.

In oppressive regime everything is a tradeoff between morality and convenience, and you need to pick your battles.

Re: Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

#82

Post by bronzeage »

The modern censorship mechanisms don't kill you, they just make everyone question your sanity. If you discuss election fraud, coronavirus coming from Wuhan lab, rich people being pedophiles (Epstein's island), or Epstein being murdered, you're a conspiracy theorist.

Re: Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

#83

Post by civilized »

throwaway81523 wrote: post #74
civilized wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this a bit cliche? "It's too long" without engagement with the argument or even with how exactly it is too long? I've just seen this a few too many times in regards to Scott and would like to see someone actually substantiate it.

If you can make the same points with 1/10th as many words, the original was too long. The guy writes extremely well, but could use some practice at editing for brevity. A wikipedia link like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance gets partway there.

Do you believe that the SSC post is primarily about pluralistic ignorance? Do you find that even the first few paragraphs of the post are at all consistent with this belief?

Maybe SSC is long because it's putting forth complex ideas. Ideas that some readers don't want to take the time to understand.

For those who want a few sentences they can chuck into one of the pre-existing boxes they formed at school, I agree SSC isn't very convenient for that.

Re: Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

#84

Post by Lambent_Cactus »

clavicat wrote: post #72
Lambent_Cactus wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with signing up with an underground Straussian heretic network is that if you're not actually beset by the Inquisition or by Stalinism, you're likelier to trap yourself in an epistemic filter bubble than to discover some secret truth. Damore wasn't burned at the stake or shot in the head; he was fired from one especially cushy software job at a giant, publicly-traded company. And rather than grappling wit…

>Damore wasn't burned at the stake or shot in the head; he was fired from one especially cushy software job at a giant, publicly-traded company. How do you think regimes normally deal with dissent? Extreme violence makes for vivid imagery but it’s not typical. Usually, it’s as simple as threatening to fire you from respectable employment and education. This is how the entire Eastern Bloc kept a lid on things.

The Eastern Bloc did ... kind of a lot of violent coercion? The penalty for jumping the Berlin Wall was not losing your job.

Re: Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

#85

Post by honkdaddy »

Lambent_Cactus wrote: post #51
Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #27

He really is an excellent writer, isn't he?

Most of his articles could be about a third as long with no loss in clarity. The meandering windups can be _rhetorically_ effective, especially when they appeal to the biases of the reader, as they appeal to mine. But they're not truth-directed, and often obscure weak or blindered reasoinng, as I think they do here.

I don’t read Scott just to consume new information or ideas, I read his blogs because they’re legitimately a joy to read. You’re right, you could trim a _lot_ of fat from these posts, but at the end of the day if his readers enjoy his prose, I don’t think he has much reason to change.

Re: Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

#86

Post by clavicat »

Lambent_Cactus wrote: post #84
clavicat wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Damore wasn't burned at the stake or shot in the head; he was fired from one especially cushy software job at a giant, publicly-traded company. How do you think regimes normally deal with dissent? Extreme violence makes for vivid imagery but it’s not typical. Usually, it’s as simple as threatening to fire you from respectable employment and education. This is how the entire Eastern Bloc kept a lid on things.

The Eastern Bloc did ... kind of a lot of violent coercion? The penalty for jumping the Berlin Wall was not losing your job.

Yes, but being shot was not the fate of a typical dissident under late socialism. Gentler states like that of Hungary also managed to suppress dissident and not with bullets. More typical is the following:

>Konrád lost his job by order of the political police in July 1973. For half a year he worked as a nurse's aide at the work-therapy-based mental institution at Doba.

Re: Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

#87

Post by ALittleLight »

joshuamorton wrote: post #79
ALittleLight wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you are saying "everyone involved agrees that Google doesn't match broad population trends". Are the men at Google taller than the women at Google? Google employees are probably unusual in variables that relate to their work with computers, but it's not at all obvious that they would be unusual on other traits, like height, for example, or assertiveness, cooperativeness, etc. Regarding Damore sharing…

> I don't know why you are saying "everyone involved agrees that Google doesn't match broad population trends". The gender balance at Google is not representative of the broad population. Presumably there are axes on which Google's demographics match population demographics, but we're talking about one axis where everyone involved agrees that they don't. > Regarding Damore sharing his memo - he shared it in places wh…

While people agree that the genders are imbalanced at Google that doesn't mean there is any reason to think that traits that typically differ within genders differ in different ways within Google. The example I gave previously is of height, I still think that's relevant. Just because Google is X% female and Y% male and X might be, but we have no reason to expect that. Why should we default to other expectations for different traits that are unrelated to their work? e.g. cooperativeness or assertiveness?

My earlier point, which you seemed confused about, is that Damore was fired for disagreeing with the orthodoxy. You seemed and seem to be implying that he shared his opinion in an incorrect. You write that he "finally posted it in a very large group" as if this were some crime. And yet, if he were expressing Google dogma, it wouldn't have been a problem. This illustrates that the problem is not where he posted his feedback but simply what he posted.

Re: Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

#88

Post by d0mine »

heyitsguay wrote: post #45
Lambent_Cactus wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with signing up with an underground Straussian heretic network is that if you're not actually beset by the Inquisition or by Stalinism, you're likelier to trap yourself in an epistemic filter bubble than to discover some secret truth. Damore wasn't burned at the stake or shot in the head; he was fired from one especially cushy software job at a giant, publicly-traded company. And rather than grappling wit…

I think you can draw parallels between that trajectory and the dynamics of "censorship" (moderation) on big social media platforms. You compare Twitter vs. Gab or Reddit vs. Voat, and these free speech alternatives get stuck in that alt-right filter bubble precisely because social media moderation has been largely (certainly not entirely) effective at targeting hatred and toxicity. When you only ban a bunch of hatefu…

It is not enough to know the truth when there are trillions of reasons ($) to preserve the lie.

It is easy: 1. ban inconvenient views on popular platforms. Start with disgusting views ("think of the children" is a great start), when extend (it helps when there are people who can be offended by anything--encourage it) 2. flood marginal platforms with trolls/provocateurs 3. point at the disgusting content your trolls generated and claim that anybody who uses the uncensored services is disgusting by association.

War is peace.

Re: Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

#89

Post by throwaway81523 »

civilized wrote: post #83
throwaway81523 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can make the same points with 1/10th as many words, the original was too long. The guy writes extremely well, but could use some practice at editing for brevity. A wikipedia link like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance gets partway there.

Do you believe that the SSC post is primarily about pluralistic ignorance? Do you find that even the first few paragraphs of the post are at all consistent with this belief? Maybe SSC is long because it's putting forth complex ideas. Ideas that some readers don't want to take the time to understand. For those who want a few sentences they can chuck into one of the pre-existing boxes they formed at school, I agree SSC…

Pluralistic ignorance is one of the ideas that comes up in the article, though not with that label. As such, it is a helpful starting point and it is easy to understand.

I thought the article made interesting points, but could have done so far more succinctly. By comparison, when I read Richard Stallman's stuff, I don't always agree with it, but I'm usually impressed by how concisely he is able to say things. SSC is too often the opposite.

Re: Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning (2017)

#90

Post by civilized »

throwaway81523 wrote: post #89
civilized wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe that the SSC post is primarily about pluralistic ignorance? Do you find that even the first few paragraphs of the post are at all consistent with this belief? Maybe SSC is long because it's putting forth complex ideas. Ideas that some readers don't want to take the time to understand. For those who want a few sentences they can chuck into one of the pre-existing boxes they formed at school, I agree SSC…

Pluralistic ignorance is one of the ideas that comes up in the article, though not with that label. As such, it is a helpful starting point and it is easy to understand. I thought the article made interesting points, but could have done so far more succinctly. By comparison, when I read Richard Stallman's stuff, I don't always agree with it, but I'm usually impressed by how concisely he is able to say things. SSC is…

To be honest, I don't find the term or the wiki article that illuminating. Scott's way of doing things from scratch, in his own words, feels more worth my time. And IMO he is doing something way more interesting in that article than just rehashing a concept we happen to have a name for.

Subjective feelings aside, it would be more interesting to give an example of an author who addresses the topics Scott addresses at a similar level of insight and manages to do so more concisely. I don't think Stallman is much of an example of that.

Good writing is not some universal fungible. It really does depend on what you're trying to say. And there are basically no other writers I can think of who are trying to model a way of thinking like Scott.

Post reply on HN