How To Build Knowledge Skyscrapers

[Elliot]

How To Build Knowledge Skyscrapers

[alanforr]

When I click this link the page doesn’t load. Nor does criticalfallibilism.com.

[alanforr]

It’s working again now, thanks.

[alanforr]

CR objection: Knowledge is a web not a skyscraper.

Reply: Yeah, but a skyscraper, tree or pyramid is an easier to understand mental model that makes a good, useful approximation for many purposes. CR’s arguments don’t contradict that.

Having a bad link in a web is a bit like having an overloaded bottleneck in a factory. It’s difficult to get any good knowledge out if one of the links in your web is blocking progress.

[Elliot]

I didn’t do anything and don’t know what happened. If it recurs, you could read the copy you received by email. You might also have a copy in an RSS reader.

[doubtingthomas]

Another great article. I can share some of my ideas that make me feel good which might explain why some of the CR objections exist.

I think of creativity as this magical thing which can find connections which everyone else missed or it can create a guess that solves a big problem. So just like Darwin I too could end up having an insight which might solve the problem of how to make AGI. The opposite of that is I have to systematically build up knowledge in increasing order of complexity which tells me that to achieve some kind of breakthrough I have to do disciplined work to improve. This is one of the reason I like the ‘foundations don’t matter’ misinterpretation of CR.

[Fire]

I really like this article. The most counter-intuitive idea to me was the bit about how focusing effort on non-error problems is an error. I only somewhat understand the concept of bottlenecks. I have net yet read Goldratt. I find the pyramid/skyscraper metaphor useful and more intuitive than the web of knowledge idea.

Revisiting older and more foundational ideas is also interesting because of the ability to bring additional context to those fundamentals.

[Eternity]

Read this article last night.

I liked it.

@Elliot

9. There are several converging, abstract reasons why medium errors are rare.

I get through the example why medium errors are rare, I think. Big errors are things that become problems fast. Small errors don’t really become problems. A medium error is something that becomes an issue somewhat far in, but not too fast. What are the abstract reasons they’re rare?

@Elliot

CR objection: Foundations don’t matter.

Reply: No, CR says that there are no ultimate or essential foundations. That is, we can add an unbounded number of basement levels, and there are many different valid skyscraper designs. But what sub-parts you build an idea from does matter, particularly when learning, even if that idea ends up fairly autonomous and could have been built in other ways.

oh

I think I’ve read in passing about the “Foundations don’t matter” stuff and just took it at face value. Ok. So there’s more to it.

[Elliot]

@Eternity

I get through the example why medium errors are rare, I think. Big errors are things that become problems fast. Small errors don’t really become problems. A medium error is something that becomes an issue somewhat far in, but not too fast. What are the abstract reasons they’re rare?

Here’s a relevant thought:

Errors can cause failure or not cause failure. What is a medium error? For quantitative issues (which are less inclined to the failure/not-failure binary than non-quantitative issues), medium is moving a factor in a bad direct to be near near a breakpoint so that random variance can cause problems. Abstractly, most factors are not near breakpoints, breakpoints are sparse, and if you move a factor by a large amount you’re not likely to land near a breakpoint (nor is moving a small amount likely to land near a breakpoint).

[Eternity]

@Elliot

Errors can cause failure or not cause failure. What is a medium error? For quantitative issues (which are less inclined to the failure/not-failure binary than non-quantitative issues), medium is moving a factor in a bad direct to be near near a breakpoint so that random variance can cause problems. Abstractly, most factors are not near breakpoints, breakpoints are sparse, and if you move a factor by a large amount you’re not likely to land near a breakpoint (nor is moving a small amount likely to land near a breakpoint).

Ok. A medium error is moving something in a way to be near a breakpoint? Or a medium error is something near a breakpoint, so, with variance, it can sometimes be serious issue, sometimes not?

Hmm. Something I thought after posting:

Larger errors are bottlenecks. Small errors are non-bottlenecks. It seems like a binary to me. Either it is a bottleneck or it isn’t.

[Elliot]

In a simplified model, some trait currently has a value of 40, and it causes failures for the whole system/goal when less than or equal to 10. It has random variance of +/- 3.

A small error reduces it to 38, causing no failures.

A big error reduces it to -50, causing failure.

A medium error reduces it to 11, which leads to sporadic failures due to random variance.

To get failures sometimes, instead of always or never, the error has to get the trait within 3 of 10. You can see why that’d be rare compared to errors that don’t get near 10 or go way past 10. The target range is small. In general, breakpoints and the areas near them are small and rare compared to all numbers. It’s a lot more common to be far from a (relevant, important) breakpoint than near one.

This is one simplified model. It’s sometimes useful and sometimes doesn’t fit well. It is not a universally correct way to look at things.

Note: People tend to focus on non-randomly selected traits which are nearer to breakpoints than average. Their intuitions often assume being near a breakpoint because they tend to look at things that are and ignore things that aren’t. This is often reasonable or practical, but it’s misleading when understanding abstract theory about how things work. It’s sort of like how a ton of people are used to cities and spend most of their time in cities but most land isn’t in a city and you need to get away from a city-biased perspective if you want to be a good geographer.

[Dface]

@Elliot

Knowledge skyscrapers are a metaphor to help explain how learning works.

I learned about metaphors and similies in school. What’s a metaphor in the quote above? I remember you can use the word “like” with similies and with metaphors you say one thing is something else. I don’t know how true that is.

After l looked up some sources, I got this from Merriam Webster:

: a [figure of speech](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/figure of speech) in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in swimming in paperwork)

I think I see that the parts of a skyscraper are used in place of ideas about knowledge. So I think I kind of get what a metaphor is.

This the goal of the metaphor:

@Elliot

to help explain how learning works.

The metaphors helps explain how learning works.

@Elliot

Floors contain ideas.

Floors are part of skyscrapers. You can go to different floors if you ride on an elevator or go by stairs. I read the article before and know there’s an idea about revisiting another floor to find errors.

The floors in the knowledge skyscraper containing ideas means that each floor has ideas.

@Elliot

Higher floors build on ideas from previous floors.

I wonder what “build on” means? You use the ideas from the previous floors make higher floors. I think about the ideas of having lunch. You buy/make your food and eat it. Those ideas make the bigger idea of lunch. Did lunch build on those lower ideas?

I know intuitively that higher floor ideas build on the lower floors. Without them, the higher floors would have to levitate or build on something else.

What if one floor mentions and idea about vegetables being good for you. And another idea from another says you can prepare vegetables to make safe for consumption. The higher level floor would build on those and make the idea of vegetable diet.

[Dface]

@Elliot

When learning, floors (new knowledge) are constructed one at a time on top of previous floors.

Yeah, when buildings are constructed I think they build floor by floor. Building is similar to learning in the metaphor. You’re making new floors when learning.

Is each floor new knowledge? I know that when you construct a floor it’s new knowledge. Is each floor knowledge? I don’t think you would be able to build anything if it wasn’t knowledge.

@Elliot

There is advanced, complex knowledge at the top of the skyscraper.

Skyscrapers are huge so I imagine the ideas at the top are made of a lot of ideas from the bottom. The ideas at the top built on the ideas from the bottom. That makes them advanced. You gotta have things from the bottom work so the ideas at the top work.

Idk why ideas at the top seem smaller to me. Foundations for some reason seem bigger than ideas at the top. I think there’s something I don’t get about building on ideas there.

[Dface]

@Elliot

Here’s how it works:

The quote above is talking about how knowledge skyscrapers work. It’s going to list features about knowledge skyscrapers. Here’s the first:

@Elliot

1. The max height of your building is at most 10 floors more than the first floor with a major error. Errors can’t support the weight of too many more floors above them.

There’s errors in the building. There could be errors. A major error limits the highest floor to be no more than 10 floors above. I think a major error is usually just called error. If an error was small then I think it doesn’t matter as much.

The second sentence of the bullet point:

@Elliot

1. Errors can’t support the weight of too many more floors above them.

Bullet points are formatted weirdly it seems on the forum. Is that quote above ok like that? Did I quote it correctly? Like, shouldn’t the number 1 be left out of the quote to be correct? It seems like there’s not content that comes before the quote above.

There’s “weight” that’s mentioned. That’s interesting cuz weight seems to be about making errors at the top. There’s weight that makes it hard to support for a floor with an error.

Here’s the second bullet point about knowledge skyscrapers:

@Elliot

2. The effects of major errors increase with distance. A major error on floor 5 means floor 6 will be damaged at least a little, while floor 15 will definitely be super broken if it exists at all.

There seems to be effects involved. That means there are causes I think. An error can cause an idea to fail. Errors on lower floors change stuff on the higher floors. There could be a dent on an error floor that makes everything built on top to lean over. The leaning over is more noticeable at the top where you’re almost sliding off the floor.

It’s like building stuff over each other in some video games. Objects can be stable being stacked over, but at some point it becomes slippery and unstable that the whole thing falls over.

I like that floors are being talked about specifically cuz now I know where the error would be. There’s no error below floor 5 I think. Stuff there wouldn’t cause damage to the floors above.

I wonder how that damage builds if there is an error on floor 5. There’s probably a misconception about building more than 5 floors that’s used. It’s not that noticeable on floor 6 but for sure noticeable on floor 15.