Thread of decodes for the day. Make sure you check out the [SUB] threads too!

More from For later read

There’s an old Zen koan that goes, “if you meet the Buddha, kill him.”

In other words, when something is self-verifiable or self-iterating, looking too heavily towards the originator can be a distraction along the path. Results speak for themselves.

Some folks have applied that to Bitcoin as well.

For example, sometimes there are debates about Satoshi Nakamoto’s original intent. Should block sizes be increased to facilitate “e-cash” or should block sizes be kept small for any user to run a node?

This is the type of problem encountered by engineers all the time: trade-offs.

A project can iterate or stay the same depending on what the market says.

Sometimes the successful product ends up being very different than the engineer initially envisioned. Sometimes it’s exactly like what they envisioned.

With Bitcoin, there are developer-vs-developer disputes, and disputes between finance-types and earlier users.

This is similar to natural selection, with “nature” as the market. Some creatures haven’t changed in hundreds of millions of years. Others have changed notably, or transformed into something else entirely.
Nice to discover Judea Pearl ask a fundamental question. What's an 'inductive bias'?

I crucial step on the road towards AGI is a richer vocabulary for reasoning about inductive biases.

explores the apparent impedance mismatch between inductive biases and causal reasoning. But isn't the logical thinking required for good causal reasoning also not an inductive bias?

An inductive bias is what C.S. Peirce would call a habit. It is a habit of reasoning. Logical thinking is like a Platonic solid of the many kinds of heuristics that are discovered.

The kind of black and white logic that is found in digital computers is critical to the emergence of today's information economy. This of course is not the same logic that drives the general intelligence that lives in the same economy.

You May Also Like