DanielFilan

Finite Factored Sets: Orthogonality and Time

OK I think this is a typo, from the proof of prop 10 where you deal with condition 5:

Thus .

I think this should be .

Finite Factored Sets: Orthogonality and Time

From def 16:

... if for all

Should I take this to mean "if for all and "?

[EDIT: no, I shouldn't, since and are both subsets of ]

A simple example of conditional orthogonality in finite factored sets

Seems right. I still think it's funky that X_1 and X_2 are conditionally non-orthogonal even when the range of the variables is unbounded.

AXRP Episode 9 - Finite Factored Sets with Scott Garrabrant

I'm glad to hear that the podcast is useful for people :)

Knowledge is not just mutual information

Seems like maybe the solution should perhaps be that you should only take 'the system' to be the 'controllable' physical variables, or those variables that are relevant for 'consequential' behaviour? Hopefully if one can provide good definitions for these, it will provide a foundation for saying what the abstractions should be that let us distinguish between 'high-level' and 'low-level' behaviour.

Challenge: know everything that the best go bot knows about go

Ah, understood. I think this is basically covered by talking about what the go bot knows at various points in time, a la this comment - it seems pretty sensible to me to talk about knowledge as a property of the actual computation rather than the algorithm as a whole. But from your response there it seems that you think that this sense isn't really well-defined.

AXRP Episode 7 - Side Effects with Victoria Krakovna

And also thanks for your kind words :)

Challenge: know everything that the best go bot knows about go

Actually, hmm. My thoughts are not really in equilibrium here.

AXRP Episode 7 - Side Effects with Victoria Krakovna

Not sure what the actual sentence you wanted to write was. "are not absolutely necessary" maybe?

You're quite right, let me fix that.

I really like the art!