Posts

OECD agenda [Link] 2019-05-30T09:51:58.849Z · score: 2 (3 votes)
Open thread, September 25 - October 1, 2017 2017-09-25T07:36:19.474Z · score: 0 (0 votes)
Open thread, September 18 - September 24, 2017 2017-09-18T08:30:37.911Z · score: 2 (2 votes)
Open thread, September 11 - September 17, 2017 2017-09-11T07:46:02.103Z · score: 1 (1 votes)
Open thread, September 4 - September 10, 2017 2017-09-04T07:41:03.866Z · score: 2 (2 votes)
Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 2017-08-28T06:11:19.159Z · score: 1 (1 votes)
Open thread, August 21 - August 27, 2017 2017-08-21T06:13:35.045Z · score: 1 (1 votes)
Open thread, August 14 - August 20, 2017 2017-08-14T07:48:13.195Z · score: 2 (2 votes)
Open thread, August 7 - August 13, 2017 2017-08-07T08:07:01.288Z · score: 1 (1 votes)
Open thread, July 31 - August 6, 2017 2017-07-31T14:41:09.485Z · score: 1 (1 votes)
Open thread, July 24 - July 30, 2017 2017-07-24T07:28:26.052Z · score: 1 (1 votes)
Open thread, July 10 - July 16, 2017 2017-07-10T06:31:11.395Z · score: 3 (3 votes)
Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017 2017-06-26T06:12:35.196Z · score: 1 (1 votes)
Open thread, June. 12 - June. 18, 2017 2017-06-12T05:36:02.328Z · score: 1 (1 votes)
Open thread, May 29 - June 4, 2017 2017-05-29T06:13:51.683Z · score: 3 (3 votes)
Open thread, May 22 - May 28, 2017 2017-05-22T05:44:05.910Z · score: 2 (3 votes)
Open thread, May 8 - May 14, 2017 2017-05-08T08:10:15.778Z · score: 3 (4 votes)
Open thread, May. 1 - May. 7, 2017 2017-05-01T15:55:32.361Z · score: 1 (2 votes)
New Year's Prediction Thread (2014) 2014-01-01T09:38:03.372Z · score: 9 (10 votes)
Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013 2013-10-07T14:52:51.109Z · score: 5 (6 votes)
Meetup: Ljubljana 2013-10-04T10:32:04.028Z · score: 1 (2 votes)
[Link] Intelligence, a thermodynamic POV 2013-07-21T12:44:09.102Z · score: -7 (8 votes)
Rationality Quotes June 2013 2013-06-03T03:08:50.803Z · score: 3 (4 votes)
New Year's Prediction Thread (2013) 2013-01-01T14:03:54.596Z · score: 5 (6 votes)
Rationality Quotes December 2012 2012-12-03T02:33:14.356Z · score: 4 (5 votes)
[LINK] How rational is the US federal state 2012-10-30T08:56:59.232Z · score: -21 (24 votes)
Questions for shminux 2012-06-22T19:35:38.437Z · score: -4 (23 votes)
[META] Karma counting problem 2012-04-18T07:51:36.365Z · score: 0 (7 votes)
Rationality Quotes March 2012 2012-03-03T08:04:55.112Z · score: 4 (9 votes)
Packing savant program 2012-02-20T08:27:17.181Z · score: -9 (16 votes)
Automatic programming, an example 2012-02-01T20:55:18.448Z · score: 12 (21 votes)
[META] Karma, its positive and negative component 2012-01-25T21:31:05.607Z · score: 15 (18 votes)
[LINK]The Edge's yearly question 2012-01-16T06:51:05.412Z · score: 2 (5 votes)
Who's in the AI business? 2012-01-15T16:53:58.165Z · score: 10 (29 votes)
NonGoogleables 2012-01-12T13:23:37.330Z · score: 0 (23 votes)
[Link] There is nothing like "intelligence", only an evolution is going on 2012-01-10T17:54:47.481Z · score: -9 (14 votes)
Rationality quotes January 2012 2012-01-01T10:28:45.564Z · score: 9 (12 votes)
Best wishes for 2012 2011-12-31T18:09:46.578Z · score: 9 (22 votes)
The Kolmogorov complexity of a superintelligence 2011-06-26T12:11:38.392Z · score: 2 (5 votes)
Open Thread, March 2011 2011-03-08T08:38:02.858Z · score: 3 (4 votes)
South/Eastern Europe Meeting in Ljubljana/Slovenia 2010-11-02T18:26:17.877Z · score: 7 (8 votes)
A puzzle 2009-04-25T02:33:00.000Z · score: -6 (27 votes)

Comments

Comment by thomas on Open Thread May 2019 · 2019-05-30T09:54:36.583Z · score: 1 (3 votes) · LW · GW

https://www.oecd.org/going-digital/ai/principles/

Either I have no clue, either ...


Comment by thomas on 2018 Year In Review · 2019-01-03T23:45:11.175Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I've done some benchmarking in 2018. I benchmarked an "AI software" we devised, by some benchmarks mostly I invented, too. Which doesn't look very good, I know, but bear with me!

For one, I have given an unsolved Sudoku puzzle to this software with two working names, "Spector" and/or "Profounder". It concluded, that for every X and every Y: X==Y implies that column(X) != column(Y) and row(X)!=row(Y). (Zero Sudoku topic knowledge by Spector is, of course, a necessary condition.)
With several unsolved Sudoku puzzles, Spector concluded that subsquare(X) != subsquare(Y). Just for one puzzle, the concept of "3 by 3 subsquare" isn't economical. It's economical for several of them, though.
The second benchmark I invented, was giving the string "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUWXYZ" to Spector. The string generating algorithm would be simpler if the letter "V" wasn't missing. This is the way Spector notices something might be wrong with the given string. (Zero alphabet topic knowledge by Spector is, of course, a necessary condition.)

Yet another benchmark was numbers from 3 to 122. Each labeled by 0 or 1, depends if it's nonprime or prime. The simplest generating algorithm is a sort of Eratosthenes sieve. Not for numbers, but for their labels. Spector finds and generates it, with zero knowledge about primes.

Another benchmark was inspired by a mistake someone made. There is a nursing school here somewhere, which sends their students to practice in a nearby hospital for a day or two every week. Except for freshmen in the first year. They teach them everything else in this school, of course, including the gym (boys and girls separated there) and they feed them all once a day, too. It's standard in this part of the world. But the school does not feed them when they are at the hospital.

So they forget to feed girls from 2B department on Thursdays when they are in school. They forget to include that into their schedule. Boys from 2B have eaten while girls were exercising, but poor girls were forgotten and nobody noticed.

I asked Spector, giving him the school schedule in CSV format if anything is wrong with it. Spector did conclude, that every student has a lunch break once a day when not practicing, except for those girls on Thursday. Which was (probability-wise) odd enough to be significant.

Spector/Profounder is all about one mayor and three to five lesser tricks. To find a generating algorithm for every part of any data it gets. This is the mayor. Then to see if some small data alteration would mean a significantly simpler generation. Then to evaluate the probabilities and needed complexities. And then Spector also asks itself, what data changes are possible but which conserve already observed rules. Which is particularly handy in the unsolved Sudoku case for example.

We will do some more benchmarking this year.

Comment by thomas on An Extensive Categorisation of Infinite Paradoxes · 2018-12-15T07:26:34.434Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

For Eve and her apple pieces. She may eat one piece per second and stay in Paradise forever because at any given moment only a finite number of pieces has been eaten by her.

If her eating pace doubles every minute, she is still okay forever.

Only if she, for example, doubles her eating pace after every say 100 pieces eaten, then she is in trouble. If she supertasks.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, January 29 - ∞ · 2018-01-29T09:08:39.391Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I tend to agree. I don't know is it just a habit or something else, like a conservative profile of myself and many others, but that doesn't really matter.

The new site isn't that much better. Should be substantially better than this one for a smooth transition.

Comment by thomas on AGI · 2017-11-08T07:50:40.307Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Please, focus only on what has been said and not on how it has been said.

Now, there is a possibility that all is wrong from my side. Of course I think how right I am, but everybody thinks that anyway. Including this Temple guy with his "don't code yet"! I wonder what people here think about that.

One more disagreement perhaps. I do think that this AlphaGo Zero piece of code is an astonishing example of AI programming, but I have some deep doubts about Watson. It was great back then in 2011, but now they seem stuck to me.

Comment by thomas on AGI · 2017-11-07T10:41:22.170Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Knowledge is information error-corrected (adapted) to a purpose (problem).

No. Knowledge is just information. If you have some information how to solve a particular problem, it's still "just information".

There are no hard and fast rules about how error-corrected or to what

Those rules are just some information, some data. How "fast and hard" are they? When there is a perfect data about the fastest checking algorithm, then it's still "just data".

The field started coding too early and is largely wasting its time.

Perhaps. How do you know what people know and who is coding already, prematurely or not?

If you joined the field, I would recommend you do not code stuff.

I wouldn't give such an advice to everybody. I don't know what some people might know. Let them code, if they wish to.

Certain philosophy progress is needed before coding.

I agree, that you need some philosophy progress, you don't know if all others need that too. At least some may be completely unknown to you or to me.

good non-AGI work (e.g. alpha go zero, watson)

Isn't their coding premature as well?

which they hope will somehow generalize to AGI (it won't, though some techniques may turn out to be useful due to being good work and having reach)

I am not as sure as you are. They hope they will do something, you hope they will not. That's all.

wasting their time

Maybe you are a time waster Mr. Temple, yourself. Your claim that "coding AGI" is premature is just a guess. It's always possible that one is wrong, but saying "you people don't have the right theory, stop coding" ... is super-wrong. You don't know that. Nobody knows, what somebody else might know already.

people are super focused on predictions but not explanations.

A good prediction can only be done if you have a good theory/model about the mechanisms involved. So every decent predictor models anyway. The best predictor possible has a correct model. Which doesn't always imply that its predictions are right. Sometimes there isn't enough data for that. Even in principle. But to predict is to model!

some even deny there are non-empirical fields like philosophy

Some are dirty bastards also, and some have friends in low places and aunts in Australia. But you seem to imply, that all should share your view about "non-empirical fields like philosophy". Yeah, right.


It has been enough. At least my last remark I gave, was already unnecessary.

Comment by thomas on Kialo -- an online discussion platform that attempts to support reasonable debates · 2017-11-05T14:04:50.361Z · score: -8 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I don't like it, at all.

As you see, my argumentation for that is just like yours. Nonexistent.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, September 25 - October 1, 2017 · 2017-09-25T07:41:18.398Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

A problem.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, September 18 - September 24, 2017 · 2017-09-22T19:01:34.233Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

There are 143 primes between 100 and 999. We can, therefore, make 2,924,207 3x3 different squares with 3 horizontal primes. 50,621 of them have all three vertical numbers prime. About 1.7%.

There are 1061 primes between 1000 and 9999. We can, therefore, make 1,267,247,769,841 4x4 different squares with 4 horizontal primes. 406,721,511 of them have all four vertical numbers prime. About 0.032%.

I strongly suspect that this goes to 0, quite rapidly.

How many Sudokus can you get with 9 digit primes horizontally and vertically?

Not a single one. Which is quite obvious when you consider that you can't have a 2, 4, 6, or 8 in the bottom row. But you have to, to have a Sudoku, by the definition.

It's a bit analogous situation here.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, September 18 - September 24, 2017 · 2017-09-22T10:44:28.205Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Say, that we have N-1 lines, with N-1 primes. Each N digits. What we now need is an N digit prime number to put it below.

Its most significant digit may be 1, 3, 7 or 9. Otherwise, the leftmost vertical number wouldn't be prime. If the sum of all N-1 other rightmost digits is X, then:

If X mod 3 = 0, then just 1 and 7 are possible, otherwise the leftmost vertical would be divisible by 3. If X mod 3 = 1, then 1, 3, 7 and 9 are possible. If X mod 3 = 2, then just 3 and 9 are possible, otherwise the leftmost vertical would be divisible by 3.

The probability is (1/3)*(((1+2+1)/5))=4/15 that the first digit fits. (4/15)^N, that all N digit fit.

Actually, we must consider the probability of divisibility by 11, which is roughly 1/11, which further reduces 4/15 per number to 40/165. And with 7 ... and so on.

For the divisibility with 3, we render out not only one permutation of N-1 primes but all of them. For the divisibilty with 11, some of them.

It's quite complicated.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, September 18 - September 24, 2017 · 2017-09-20T19:52:41.291Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Interesting line of inferring... I am quite aware how dense primes are, but that might not be enough.

I have counted all these 4x4 (decimal) crossprimes. There are 913,425,530 of them if leading zeros are allowed. But only 406,721,511 without leading zeros.

if leading zeros ARE allowed, then there are certainly arbitrary large crossprimes out there. But if leading zeros aren't allowed, I am not that sure. I have no proof, of course.

Comment by thomas on The Copenhagen Letter · 2017-09-19T22:15:35.493Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Well, I said something in line with "people may need some stuff to live and declaring that we should "put people before that stuff" is a silly way to present the situation". Maybe not as silly as it's a demagoguery.

But then I changed my mind and decided to not participate in a discussion at all. But somehow couldn't erase this now empty box.

Comment by thomas on The Copenhagen Letter · 2017-09-19T18:25:20.933Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW
Comment by thomas on The Copenhagen Letter · 2017-09-18T18:58:17.507Z · score: 5 (5 votes) · LW · GW

tl;dr

But I saw this:

Time to put humans before business.

Time to put humans before oxygen, too? Silly stuff.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, September 18 - September 24, 2017 · 2017-09-18T15:02:08.206Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

The bottom and the rightmost prime can both have only odd digits without 5. The probability for each prime to fit there is then only (2/5)^N times that. We can't see them as independent random numbers.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, September 18 - September 24, 2017 · 2017-09-18T12:21:10.245Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Very well. What do you think, are there arbitrary large squares possible or not?

I think not. Even in binary notations NxN and above, probably don't exist for an N, large enough.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, September 18 - September 24, 2017 · 2017-09-18T11:33:07.431Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Congratulation! It's essential that you don't tell the algorithm, at least for now. You have an extra solution, where every horizontal has its equal vertical. Which is perfectly okay, but I wonder if that is the property of your algorithm?

Comment by thomas on Open thread, September 18 - September 24, 2017 · 2017-09-18T08:33:13.358Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

A problem to ponder this week.

Comment by thomas on 2017 LessWrong Survey · 2017-09-13T19:53:51.816Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

My country isn't from the list of the default choices. So I type it and pressed Enter. It's all I remember.

Comment by thomas on 2017 LessWrong Survey · 2017-09-13T10:18:02.812Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Previous session is set to be finished.

Your browser reports that it was used previously to answer this survey. We are resetting the session so that you can start from the beginning.

Click here to start the survey.

I have just pressed Enter after my country's name. Fix this!

Comment by thomas on Open thread, September 11 - September 17, 2017 · 2017-09-12T19:14:18.744Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

There is a mountain on the Moon's south pole, where the Sun is always shining. Except when it's covered by Earth, which is rare and not for a long time. A great place for a palace of the Solar System's Emperor.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, September 11 - September 17, 2017 · 2017-09-12T17:20:55.130Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Can't use the Moon. It's already booked and reserved for a computronium.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, September 11 - September 17, 2017 · 2017-09-11T07:48:19.883Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

We have a problem.

Comment by thomas on Automatic programming, an example · 2017-09-11T07:10:29.983Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Kepler's law isn't O=constant*A. This is very wrong, silly even.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, September 4 - September 10, 2017 · 2017-09-04T07:42:30.279Z · score: 9 (9 votes) · LW · GW

No problem this week, just an appreciation for people of LessWrong who can be right, when I am wrong.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 · 2017-09-01T12:46:41.994Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Say, that SB has only 10 tries to escape.

The DM (Dungeon Master) tosses his 10 coins and SB tosses her 20 coins, even before the game begins.

There are 2^30, which is about a billion possible outputs. More than half of them grants her freedom.

We compute her exit by - At the earliest x>y condition in each output bit string, the DM has also the freeing coin toss.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 · 2017-09-01T07:57:32.107Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

1._round_________________1____________________8______0.125

2._round________________15___________________64______0.234

3._round_______________164__________________512______0.32

4._round_____________1,585________________4,096______0.387

5._round____________14,392_______________32,768______0.439

6._round___________126,070______________262,144______0.481

7._round_________1,079,808____________2,097,152______0.515

8._round_________9,111,813___________16,777,216______0.543

9._round________76,095,176__________134,217,728______0.567

Comment by thomas on Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 · 2017-08-31T19:21:20.542Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Your basic idea is right here. But ... this product isn't that straightforward.

Say it's the 100th session. It is a lot of ways, that x becomes greater than y exactly this time. Especially if the formula is x>y+sqr(y) or something alike from the Chebyshev's arsenal.

If the session is then 101st, this new small probability isn't much smaller than it was in the 100th session.

Still, you may be right that the product (1-p_n)*(1-p_n+1) ... converges to 1/2 at the most.

Well, I doubt it.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 · 2017-08-31T19:02:05.273Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Interesting. Do you agree that every number is reached by the z function defined above, infinite number of times?

And yet, every single time z != sleeping_round? In the 60 percent of this Sleeping Beauty imprisonments?

Even if the condition x>y is replaced by something like x>y+sqrt(y) or whatever formula, you can't go above 50%?

Extraordinary. Might be possible, though.

You clearly have a function N->N where eventually every natural number is a value of this function f, but f(n)!=n for all n.

That would be easier if it would be f(n)>>n almost always. But sometimes is bigger, sometimes is smaller.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 · 2017-08-31T16:47:30.898Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

So, you say, the Sleeping Beauty is there forever with the probability of at least 1/2.

Then she has all the time in the world, to exercise this function which outputs z. Do you agree, that every natural number will be eventually reached by this algorithm, counting the double tossings, adding 0 or 1 to x and 0 or 1 to y and increasing z, until x>y?

Agree?

Comment by thomas on Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 · 2017-08-31T13:31:47.036Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Right. There around 1 you often can actually multiply an infinite number of factors and get some finite result.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 · 2017-08-31T12:53:38.341Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Define flip values as H=0 and T=1. You have to flip this fair coin twice. You increase x=x+value(1) and y=y+value(2) and z=z+1. If x>y you stop flipping and declare - It's the z-th round of the game.

For example, after TH, x=1 and y=0 and z=1. You stop tossing and declare 1st round. If it is HH, you continue tossing it twice again.

No matter how late in the game you are, you have a nonzero probability to win. Chebyshev (and Chernoff) can help you improve the x>y condition a bit. I don't know how much yet. Neither I have a proof that then the probability of exiting is > 1/2. But at least that much it is. Some Monte-Carloing seems to agree.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 · 2017-08-31T09:42:32.370Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I think that was not his question. Hi didn't ask about product integral of f(x), but "product integral of x".

EDIT: And that for "small x". At least I understood his question so.

Comment by thomas on Is life worth living? · 2017-08-30T12:46:24.162Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Me too. And death not worth dying!

Comment by thomas on Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 · 2017-08-29T21:39:32.375Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I am afraid, that multiplication of even countably many small numbers yields 0. Let alone the product of more than that, what your integration analogous operation would be,

You can get a nonzero product if the sum of differences between 1 and your factors converge. Then and only then. But if all the factors are smaller than say 0.9 ... you get 0.

Except if you can find some creative way to that anyway. Might be possible, I don't know.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 · 2017-08-29T06:56:59.608Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Sure. But not only to 7/16 but to the infinite number of other values, too. You just have to play with it longer.

The question now is, can the coin make it better, too? If not, why it can only make it worse?

Comment by thomas on Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 · 2017-08-28T20:58:57.450Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

The coin can at least lower your chances. Say, that you will say 3 if it is head and 4 if it is the tail.

You can win at round 3 with the probability 1/4 and you can win at round 4 with the probability 1/4.

Is that right?

Comment by thomas on Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 · 2017-08-28T15:33:50.612Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

You will always say the same number each time, since you are identical each time.

That's why you get a fair coin. Like a program, which gets seed for its random number generator from the clock.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 · 2017-08-28T14:57:36.808Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

True. You can do it worse than 1/2. Just toss a coin and if it lands head up choose 1, otherwise choose 2.

You can link more numbers this way and it can be even worse.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 · 2017-08-28T14:24:48.584Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Say, you must always give a positive number. Can you do worse than 1/2 then?

Comment by thomas on Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 · 2017-08-28T14:02:59.405Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Can you do worse than that?

Comment by thomas on Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 · 2017-08-28T13:35:36.926Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

No, that is not possible.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 · 2017-08-28T11:47:00.357Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

If you always say "It's my first time" you will be freed with the probability 1/2, yes.

I'll give the best strategy I know before the end of this week. Now, it would be a spoiler.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 · 2017-08-28T11:16:27.167Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

No. If that damn dungeon master hadn't tossed that fair coin himself first, then it would be the best strategy to say "It's my first time here" - and you are free.

But it may very well be, that he tossed heads up before and put you right back to sleep with amnesia induced. In that case, you are never out.

Comment by thomas on Open thread, August 28 - September 3, 2017 · 2017-08-28T06:12:31.800Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

There is a problem ...

Comment by thomas on The Contrarian Sequences · 2017-08-27T20:07:54.959Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

I strongly encourage you to do this!

Most likely, it will be worse than the original, the "LessWrong Sequences", but there is a chance, it will be overall better. There is a room for improvements, there is a room for correcting some big mistakes, too! And there is room to cover the uncovered, but equally or more important stuff!

Just do it!

Comment by thomas on Nasas ambitious plan to save earth from a supervolcano · 2017-08-27T15:54:54.397Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

There were models that have predicted how much the Earth would be expected to heat up given certain amounts of carbon released into the atmosphere from the early 1990's, and they have been pretty accurate predictions.

Really?

If you want to come up with an alternate scientific hypothesis to explain that fact

I don't want to. I even don't know if it is a fact or not. I don't see any raw data about this anywhere. I will most certainly not bother with that. Because if something is presented without solid data, it can be simply dismissed.

Comment by thomas on Nasas ambitious plan to save earth from a supervolcano · 2017-08-27T06:50:37.697Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

What probabilistic predictions do we have for the so called "Climate Change" or "to frack is to die" Green "science"?

We have "no doubt, the science is settled".

The Green "science" is quite a big part of our lives. Unfortunately.

Appart from this, we have problems with fats and sugars in medicine and many things elsewhere.

Science might be the best we have, but it isn't perfect, at all.

Comment by thomas on Nasas ambitious plan to save earth from a supervolcano · 2017-08-26T21:43:32.363Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

No prediction, no science.

Comment by thomas on Nasas ambitious plan to save earth from a supervolcano · 2017-08-26T06:19:22.124Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

You can't just dismiss scientific evidence for political reasons.

I will cease to be so skeptical about the earthquake science when those earthquakes which do happen all the time will be predicted more. Until then, it's not a science yet. It's more a handwaving. In this particular case politically correct handwaving.