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

A first lesson in meta-rationality

metarationality.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 108 posts

Re: A first lesson in meta-rationality

#91

Post by handoflixue »

alboaie wrote: post #4
abss wrote: post #3

Another good introduction: https://drossbucket.com/2017/09/30/metarationality-a-messy-i...

Despite admitting verbally that a map is not the territory, rationalists hope that if they take one map, and keep updating it long enough, this map will asymptotically approach the territory. In other words, that in every moment, using one map is the right strategy. Meta-rationalists don’t believe in the ability to update one map sufficiently (or perhaps just sufficiently quickly), and intentionally use different map…

Ahh, thanks, that's a very useful distinction to me

Re: A first lesson in meta-rationality

#92

Post by handoflixue »

brudgers wrote: post #62
EricBurnett wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends how you define "simple" : '(ap|ib|ind)ex' is fewer symbols and a smaller character graph. There is no offside in golf...yet. But the rules are surprisingly long, and will only get longer as loopholes are found and exploited. Humans trying to codify a game, or any system, cannot do so precisely; others can and will find the gaps between the written rules and the intended meaning, and play a different game b…

‘*’ is fewer characters. If we are playing that language game.

> ‘*’ is fewer characters.

yes, but that produces false positives, whereas both 'apex|ibex|index' and '(ap|ib|ind)ex' do not.

Your original claim was that 'apex|ibex|index' was "simplest", which means it has some property you think that '(ap|ib|ind)ex' lacks, but you haven't yet articulated what that IS.

Re: A first lesson in meta-rationality

#93

Post by brudgers »

handoflixue wrote: post #92
brudgers wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

‘*’ is fewer characters. If we are playing that language game.

> ‘*’ is fewer characters. yes, but that produces false positives, whereas both 'apex|ibex|index' and '(ap|ib|ind)ex' do not. Your original claim was that 'apex|ibex|index' was "simplest", which means it has some property you think that '(ap|ib|ind)ex' lacks, but you haven't yet articulated what that IS.

It is the simplest to reason about.

And the simplest to produce algorithmically.

To prove it, extend each regex to include “indices”.

Being less clever, it is simpler to debug.

Re: A first lesson in meta-rationality

#94

Post by webmaven »

pontifier wrote: post #40

I have recently come up with a model that has been useful to me for thinking about thinking. It involves the realization that different brain regions must communicate, but also contain their own representation of reality. Partial thought precursors echo back and forth between these regions, with each region amplifying or dampening parts of the idea that it recognizes as valid. When multiple brain regions begin to agr…

> It involves the realization that different brain regions must communicate, but also contain their own representation of reality.

Sure, but this is complicated by regions being fuzzy and overlapping (or perhaps interpenetrating).

Re: A first lesson in meta-rationality

#95

Post by cs702 »

tlb wrote: post #7

An interesting category of problems are like Bongard problems in that you have to deduce the rule from examples, but the examples are presented one at a time at random long intervals so you have to work from memory. Most real-world learning is like this. When working from memory, it's normal for your memory to have already parsed the previous situation into features. As some of the later examples in the blog illustra…

> While I could solve all the problems in the article, I doubt I could solve any but the simplest if I was shown 1 image per day over 12 days and not allowed to write anything down.

This is true for me too. Even 1 image every minute over 12 minutes would be quite difficult for me. I'm not sure I could solve any of these problems without being able to look at the figures side-by-side, back-and-forth, again and again, until I get an "aha!" moment.

On a related note, I have found that revisiting old information multiple times over sometimes longish time spans and unconsciously comparing it with newer, fresher information often helps me gain insight and greater depth of knowledge.

Re: A first lesson in meta-rationality

#96

Post by webmaven »

roenxi wrote: post #11
alboaie wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite admitting verbally that a map is not the territory, rationalists hope that if they take one map, and keep updating it long enough, this map will asymptotically approach the territory. In other words, that in every moment, using one map is the right strategy. Meta-rationalists don’t believe in the ability to update one map sufficiently (or perhaps just sufficiently quickly), and intentionally use different map…

That comment is picking at a fair critique, but some details seem to be wrong. > rationalists hope that if they take one map, and keep updating it long enough, this map will asymptotically approach the territory That is, as far as can be detected, what the human brain does. It isn't just the rationalists who have a view and keep updating it, hoping it will asymptotically approach the territory. It is exceedingly diff…

> I'm struggling to see how someone could hold 'different' maps because they become one map in your head. Rationalists are perfectly comfortable with there being multiple possible scenarios leading to an outcome.

A street map and a subway map both describe the connectivity within a city, but even when a human internalizes them both, they don't get subsumed into a single map exactly, rather the human mode-switches between them at various points to stich together a route.

If you doubt this, try visualizing exactly which streets and landmarks are going by overhead as you travel between stations. It is rather hard to do, and as a result people often treat stations more like portals into a parallel wormhole network.

This of course uses literal maps as an exemplar, but similar ones are 'code switching' back and forth between dialects rather than blending them, and visual illusions that can be seen as one image or another, but not both at once.

Re: A first lesson in meta-rationality

#97

Post by handoflixue »

brudgers wrote: post #93
handoflixue wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ‘*’ is fewer characters. yes, but that produces false positives, whereas both 'apex|ibex|index' and '(ap|ib|ind)ex' do not. Your original claim was that 'apex|ibex|index' was "simplest", which means it has some property you think that '(ap|ib|ind)ex' lacks, but you haven't yet articulated what that IS.

It is the simplest to reason about. And the simplest to produce algorithmically. To prove it, extend each regex to include “indices”. Being less clever, it is simpler to debug.

Depends on whether your relevant criteria is "those 3 words at random" or you have some reason to draw attention to the fact that they all end in "ex".

If I saw that list, I'd certainly assume there was something special about the "ex" ending since they don't otherwise have much in common and it's extremely unlikely for random chance to produce three "-ex" words just by chance. The shorter regex does a good job of highlighting that yes, "-ex" is the relevant criteria we care about.

Re: A first lesson in meta-rationality

#98

Post by brudgers »

handoflixue wrote: post #97
brudgers wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the simplest to reason about. And the simplest to produce algorithmically. To prove it, extend each regex to include “indices”. Being less clever, it is simpler to debug.

Depends on whether your relevant criteria is "those 3 words at random" or you have some reason to draw attention to the fact that they all end in "ex". If I saw that list, I'd certainly assume there was something special about the "ex" ending since they don't otherwise have much in common and it's extremely unlikely for random chance to produce three "-ex" words just by chance. The shorter regex does a good job of hi…

It is easy to produce very brittle code by assuming a premise that allows one to rationalize being clever. Or as the British sometimes say “too clever by half.”

I just picked three words I fancied at the time I was illustrating my point. Not random, but not because -ex was important. The language game I was playing was writing an HN comment for amusement.

The finite state machine of my regular expression has one fewer nodes than yours. If that ain’t simpler it will do until simpler shows up.

Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it? — Brian Kernighan

Re: A first lesson in meta-rationality

#99

Post by lorepieri »

These problems remind me of https://github.com/fchollet/ARC

"ARC can be seen as a general artificial intelligence benchmark, as a program synthesis benchmark, or as a psychometric intelligence test. It is targeted at both humans and artificially intelligent systems that aim at emulating a human-like form of general fluid intelligence."

Re: A first lesson in meta-rationality

#100

Post by ghusbands »

ScottBurson wrote: post #90
tlb wrote: post #7

An interesting category of problems are like Bongard problems in that you have to deduce the rule from examples, but the examples are presented one at a time at random long intervals so you have to work from memory. Most real-world learning is like this. When working from memory, it's normal for your memory to have already parsed the previous situation into features. As some of the later examples in the blog illustra…

Here's a deduce-the-rule problem that completely stumped me until I wrote down a series of examples: https://illuminations.nctm.org/lessons/petals/petals.htm

It seems trivial from the name and I always get the same answer as it gives; is there a way to confirm my rule?
Post reply on HN