this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
22 points (100.0% liked)

SneerClub

989 readers
3 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
self@awful.systems
blakestacey@awful.systems
dgerard@awful.systems
22
You may not like it, but this is what peak rationality looks like (nitter.net)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by sue_me_please@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Let's build a tower of nonsense on top of numbers we vibe with and pulled out of our ass

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] swlabr@awful.systems 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There are some follow up tweets.

To the commenters shocked that Zvi’s probability numbers don’t come from an “objective calculation”:

Not shocked. At this point I am numb to it though.

  1. Approximating numerical probabilities is required if you want to make coherent decisions.

Average bayesist when they need to pee:

“Hmm, I suspect I need to pee. The decision I now must make is whether or not I should use my toilet or my sink.”

half an hour of examining priors, searching LW for urination sequences and setting up a prediction market later

“Hmm, it appears I have peed my pants.”

  1. Probability is subjective (a property of our belief-state) for us Bayesians.

Oh my god, he admit it!

[–] sue_me_please@awful.systems 5 points 1 year ago

Approximating numerical probabilities is required if you want to make coherent decisions.

I hate everything about this sentence within its context.