@@dannn185 Some people are so productive in their ideas that interjection and interview by a moderator diminishes the conversation. You did a great job letting them “hash it out” with only infrequent and brief clarification. Bravo.
Great video! Thanks for hosting and publishing! You should have made the title "David Deutsch CRUSHES Robin Hanson in debate" or "David Deutsch FLUSTERED by Robin Hanson's LOGIC" for maximum views ^_^
Robin Hanson said that he made so many independent points that the probability of at least one being true was very high. Deutsch replied that this was a bad explanation.
Those titles attract the wrong people. They are also false and misleading which bothers the right people. You only need to make that mistake once to lose the asset of your endeavor.
Probability (and stochastic models) are most problematic when the values of their underlying assumptions (historical base rates) are subject to change. These concepts are useful when their predictions embody some explanatory model about the way the world really is. This knowledge is usually implicit in statistical models since the numbers do not always carry units with them, especially when expressed in pure probabilistic terms. In other words, probability is effective because it captures a possibility space and one of those possibilities could be the actual case (reality). For a stochastic model to continuously make successful predictions, the system it models must be static (closed). The primary reason stochastic predictions fail is when the model attempts to predict dynamic (open) systems in which new knowledge (new explanatory assumptions) can be created that differ from or are not captured by the base assumptions of the model. This amounts to predicting what new knowledge will be created... a hopelessly impossible task.
David the undisputed champ won the debate with every round KO... and seriously that's great to hear David on specific topic's predictions and what can we predict with our best explanations. Hanson is a perfect debater for this thanks a lot Daniel!
Starting around minute 31 is a kernel of the current pessimistic view that human knowledge should have a stop is exposed by Deutsch. What happens in the future depends on what we think and do. We need to increase the speed of problem-solving.
Robin's argument is that you can't condition on information you don't have. It doesn't matter whether you have the "right" probability distribution or not. The only thing that matters is what forecast model you can create given the information you have at the time (i.e. your Baysian prior). David argument is bascially "your probablity distribution is wrong. So don't use it for forecasting". And Robin says "well we don't have the correct distribution, but what we have is better than random chance, so we should use it what we have until we learn more".
Lots of people can sound smart, but can you have an engaging conversation with David Deutsch and continue to sound smart? I think Robin Hanson did it. How many other human beings could?
Not very familiar with Robin before this but I actually think he is a very good conversationalist. When he gets flustered (which I agree seems like a lot of the time 😂) he still responds in a good-natured way, while bringing a lot of energy and interesting ideas. Also, it could be that he seemed more exasperated than he was because he is so expressive, lots of hand gestures and stuff
@@podge7356 it was a good conversation and good natured yes. It just felt like he was a little more invested in being right than openly exploring the ideas (at those flustered points).
If you have nothing to go on, then don't make a prediction. Plenty trends come to an end or are only superficial. Will the population of earth decline because it's women become educated and career oriented?
Robin is quite talented and is one of the better economists but he comes across as too defensive in this conversation and does not seem to understand the clear flaws in some of his arguments that David repeatedly tries to communicate in this conversation. Worth a watch nevertheless.
No, it won't. It will be the finest expression of the fact that humans are creative universal explainers. We are not yet anywhere near the breakthrough. We are stuck in the philosophy of man as machine.
weekly hanson-deutsch podcast plz
Agreed. This was brilliant. Even just one more would be awesome
Yes I will glady tune in every week
Had professor Hanson for undergraduate law and economics. The breadth of his knowledge is crazy.
Two of my favorite thinkers engaging with each other. Fantastic.
ikr - i know right
Very well mediated
(Not sarcasm)
@@user-kc4lt2eg6u Thank you. I mean to speak more clearly in future. I brought questions, but they didn't need them.
@@dannn185 Some people are so productive in their ideas that interjection and interview by a moderator diminishes the conversation. You did a great job letting them “hash it out” with only infrequent and brief clarification. Bravo.
David is awesome! I am perpetually on the outlook for new material-gr8!
Great video! Thanks for hosting and publishing!
You should have made the title "David Deutsch CRUSHES Robin Hanson in debate" or "David Deutsch FLUSTERED by Robin Hanson's LOGIC" for maximum views ^_^
Robin Hanson said that he made so many independent points that the probability of at least one being true was very high. Deutsch replied that this was a bad explanation.
Those titles attract the wrong people. They are also false and misleading which bothers the right people. You only need to make that mistake once to lose the asset of your endeavor.
Great discussion. No clear winner. It's a shame it doesn't have more views.
Fantastic conversation. I love the background elements table that David uses.
Probability (and stochastic models) are most problematic when the values of their underlying assumptions (historical base rates) are subject to change. These concepts are useful when their predictions embody some explanatory model about the way the world really is. This knowledge is usually implicit in statistical models since the numbers do not always carry units with them, especially when expressed in pure probabilistic terms. In other words, probability is effective because it captures a possibility space and one of those possibilities could be the actual case (reality). For a stochastic model to continuously make successful predictions, the system it models must be static (closed). The primary reason stochastic predictions fail is when the model attempts to predict dynamic (open) systems in which new knowledge (new explanatory assumptions) can be created that differ from or are not captured by the base assumptions of the model. This amounts to predicting what new knowledge will be created... a hopelessly impossible task.
Isnt he saying that probability is not explanatory knowledge?
Most fascinating! Appreciate cha!
David the undisputed champ won the debate with every round KO... and seriously that's great to hear David on specific topic's predictions and what can we predict with our best explanations. Hanson is a perfect debater for this thanks a lot Daniel!
Yes I agree. They matched really well! I don't think there's a clear winner myself:>
These guys are more or less on the same page really
I can't believe the balls on this guy treating the father of quantum Computing like this.
Brilliance ..
Is the conclusion that stochastic models and inductive reasoning are useful but they are wrong as they are not accurate explanations of reality?
Starting around minute 31 is a kernel of the current pessimistic view that human knowledge should have a stop is exposed by Deutsch. What happens in the future depends on what we think and do. We need to increase the speed of problem-solving.
Hello really nice one thank you!
Hanson: Bayes' theorem!
Deutsch: Sorry chap, F=ma.
Robin simply doesn't understand David's epistemology, but thanks for the content!
Robin's argument is that you can't condition on information you don't have. It doesn't matter whether you have the "right" probability distribution or not. The only thing that matters is what forecast model you can create given the information you have at the time (i.e. your Baysian prior).
David argument is bascially "your probablity distribution is wrong. So don't use it for forecasting". And Robin says "well we don't have the correct distribution, but what we have is better than random chance, so we should use it what we have until we learn more".
@@a.fleischbender7681 No, David did not argue that
@@SuperGnarley Then what did he argue?
Hanson's constant snide interruptions made this a less helpful conversation than it could have been.
Lots of people can sound smart, but can you have an engaging conversation with David Deutsch and continue to sound smart? I think Robin Hanson did it. How many other human beings could?
David is a very patient man.
How does David predict what he might have for dinner tomorrow night?
Depends on the problem
The fun thing about predictions is that they are often wrong.
Why does Robin get so flustered. Seems to derail the convo a little.
Robin has a wonderful mind. He is just debating with one of the most amazing minds of our time. He didn’t need to do so.
Not very familiar with Robin before this but I actually think he is a very good conversationalist. When he gets flustered (which I agree seems like a lot of the time 😂) he still responds in a good-natured way, while bringing a lot of energy and interesting ideas. Also, it could be that he seemed more exasperated than he was because he is so expressive, lots of hand gestures and stuff
@@podge7356 it was a good conversation and good natured yes. It just felt like he was a little more invested in being right than openly exploring the ideas (at those flustered points).
@@ptaylor3304 agreed! Happens to the best of us
@@podge7356 indeed
If you have nothing to go on, then don't make a prediction. Plenty trends come to an end or are only superficial.
Will the population of earth decline because it's women become educated and career oriented?
Robin is quite talented and is one of the better economists but he comes across as too defensive in this conversation and does not seem to understand the clear flaws in some of his arguments that David repeatedly tries to communicate in this conversation. Worth a watch nevertheless.
A.G.I Will be man's last invention
No, it won't. It will be the finest expression of the fact that humans are creative universal explainers. We are not yet anywhere near the breakthrough. We are stuck in the philosophy of man as machine.