User Profile

star25
description33
message186

Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Personal Blogposts
personPersonal blogposts by LessWrong users (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

The New Riddle of Induction: Neutral and Relative Perspectives on Color

5mo
9 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
4

Odds ratios and conditional risk ratios

1y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
5

Is Caviar a Risk Factor For Being a Millionaire?

1y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
9

Link: The Economist on Paperclip Maximizers

2y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
3

Link: Evidence-Based Medicine Has Been Hijacked

2y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
39

Clearing An Overgrown Garden

2y
2 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
19

Meetup : Palo Alto Meetup: Lightning Talks

2y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
0

Meetup : Palo Alto Meetup: Introduction to Causal Inference

2y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
0

Meetup : Palo Alto Meetup: The Economics of AI

2y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
0

Post-doctoral Fellowships at METRICS

2y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
1

Recent Comments

In my view, "the problem of induction" is just a bunch of philosophers obsessing over the fact that induction is not deduction, and that you therefore cannot predict the future with logical certainty. This is true, but not very interesting. We should instead spend our energy thinking about how to ma...(read more)

I am not sure I fully understand this comment, or why you believe my argument is circular. It is possible that you are right, but I would very much appreciate a more thorough explanation. In particular, I am not "concluding" that humans were produced by an evolutionary process; but rather using it ...(read more)

Update: The editors of the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology have now rejected my second letter to the editor, and thus helped prove Eliezer's point about four layers of conversation.

> Why do you think two senior biostats guys would disagree with you if it was obviously wrong? I have worked with enough academics to know that they are far far from infallible, but curious on your analysis of this question.

Good question. I think a lot of this is due to a cultural difference betwe...(read more)

I wrote this on my personal blog; I was reluctant to post this to Less Wrong since it is not obviously relevant to the core interests of LW users. However, I concluded that some of you may find it interesting as an example of how the academic publishing system is broken. It is relevant to Eliezer's ...(read more)

I wrote this on my personal blog; I was reluctant to post this to Less Wrong since it is not obviously relevant to the core interests of LW users. However, I concluded that some of you may find it interesting as an example of how the academic publishing system is broken. It is relevant to Eliezer's...(read more)

VortexLeague: Can you be a little more specific about what kind of help you need?

A very short, general introduction to Less Wrong is available at http://lesswrong.com/about/

Essentially, Less Wrong is a reddit-type forum for discussing how we can make our beliefs more accurate.

Thank you for the link, that is a very good presentation and it is good to see that ML people are thinking about these things.

There certainly are ML algorithms that are designed to make the second kind of predictions, but generally they only work if you have a correct causal model

It is possibl...(read more)

I skimmed this paper and plan to read it in more detail tomorrow. My first thought is that it is fundamentally confused. I believe the confusion comes from the fact that the word "prediction" is used with two separate meanings: Are you interested in predicting Y given an observed value of X (Pr[Y ...(read more)

Thanks for catching that, I stand corrected.