You want me to read it? Okay.<p>I don&#x27;t like the introduction, mostly because I believe what he ridicules to a degree (AI is an existential risk, I have enjoyed HPMOR more than Rowling&#x27;s work, and I&#x27;m not quite sure that making lots of money and give it away is worse than working directly for whatever cause we want to support).<p><i>Bayesian grace</i><p>Bayes T-shirt means certain asshole.  Well at least it made me smile.<p>I agree that Bayes&#x27; theorem is not that notable. The product rule, more fundamental, is more representative of the laws of probability (the <i>actual</i> basis for bayesianism).<p>Of course, the &quot;formula for the perfect brain&quot; is computationally intractable…<p>The association between Bayesianism and Neo-Liberalism looks like an ad-hominem attack —doesn&#x27;t apply to me, at least.<p>I can&#x27;t comment on this &quot;Bayesian revolution&quot;.  But I&#x27;m already suspicious of the whole essay at this point, and cannot trust this paragraph.<p><i>Amazing Bayes</i><p>What the author fails to acknowledge here is that to the extent it can apply, Probability theory <i>is</i> that amazing. There are, like <i>proofs</i> of it working very broadly, and it relies on very few axioms. (Jayne&#x27;s work in <i>Probability Theory: the Logic of Science</i> leaves little doubt about that.)<p>Absence of evidence <i>is</i> evidence of absence.  Often very weak evidence, but evidence nonetheless.  Whoever believe otherwise doesn&#x27;t understand probability theory.  (Maybe the author conflated &quot;evidence&quot; and &quot;proof&quot;, or &quot;evidence&quot; and &quot;strong evidence&quot;?)<p>The correct application of probability theory is computationally intractable in many cases.  I can see how it would be unworkable for historians, who have to juggle with many many kinds of evidence. Not having read Richard Carrier however, I&#x27;m not sure this objection is not yet another strawman.<p>Accusing Bayesianism to be responsible for confirmation bias is ridiculous however.  Confirmation bias does not follow probability theory.  It often follows an incorrect application of it however.<p><i>Less Wrong</i><p>Okay, I&#x27;m out.  The insults are too blunt, came too soon, without any justification so far.  SIAI (now MIRI) as a doomsday cult is a strawman.  As for LessWrong, Eliezer <i>specifically</i> warned about the dangers of using rationalist&#x27;s tools for rhetoric purposes —how your own biases can <i>increase</i> when you know about biases.<p>I&#x27;m not taking the effort required to search for and debunk any justification that might come later.  He just used up my patience.