Felix2
-2
9
Felix2 has not written any posts yet.
Beautiful idea!
Is a Wiki separate from Wikipedia needed?
Similar problem: One thing I run in to often on Wikipedia is entries that use the field's particular mathematical notation for no reason other than particular symbols and expressions are the jargon of the field. They get in the way of understanding what the entry is saying, though.
Similar problem is there seem to be academic papers that have practical applications and yet the papers are written to be as unclear as possible - perhaps to take on that "important" sheen, perhaps simply because the authors are deep in their own jargon and assume all readers know everything they know. Consider papers in the AI field. :)
Has anyone built the equivalent of a Turing machine using processor count and/or replicated input data as the cheap resource rather than time?
That is, what could a machine that does everything in one step do in the way of useful work? With or without restrictions on how many replications of the input data there are going in and where the output might come out?
OK, OK. "Dude, what are you smoking?", right? :)
Does this mean that if we cannot remember ever changing our minds, our minds are very good at removing clutter?
Or, consider a question that you've not made up your mind on: Does this mean that you're most likely to never make up your mind?
And, anyway, in light of those earlier posts concerning how well people estimate numeric probabilities, should it be any wonder that 66% = 96%?
Nick: Nice spin! :) Context would be important if Eliezer had not asserted as a given that many, many experiments have been done to preclude any influence of context. My extremely limited experience and knowledge of psychological experiments says that there is a 100% chance that such is not a valid assertion. Imagine a QA engineer trying to skate by with the setups of psych experiments you have run in to. But, personal, anecdotal experience aside, it's real easy to believe Eliezer's assertion is true. Most people might have a hard time tuning out context, though, and therefore might have a harder time, both with conjunction fallacy questionnaires and accepting Eliezer's assertion.
g:... (read more)
Ooooo! "Dice roll?" By, God, my good fellow, you mean, "coin flips!"
Here's a candidate for a question to illustrate a couple of related biases:
Given the following two dice roll records:
1: HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
2: THTTHTHHTHTTHHHTTHTHTTHHTHHTTTH
Which of the following is true:
A) 1 is more probable than 2.
B) 2 is more probable than 1.
C) Both are equally probable.
Now, I predict that there will be at least 1 "normal" person who answers C.
"Unbelievable," you say?
Stay tuned!
I will make a stronger prediction: If this question were posed to 1000 randomly selected, well-dressed, Nordic-looking people found purposely walking the downtown sidewalks during daytime in a large American city (with luck, eliminating the possibility that I cheat by selecting 1000 people from insane asylums or from people who know no English), I... (read more)
Arrrr. Shiver me timbers. I shore be curious what the rank be of "Linda is active in the feminist movement and is a bank teller" would be, seeing as how its meanin' is so far diff'rent from the larboard one aloft.
A tip 'o the cap to the swabbies what found a more accurate definition of "probability" (I be meanin' "representation".) than what logicians assert the meaning o' "probability" be. Does that mean, at a score of one to zero, all psychologists are better lexicographers than all logicians?
Quote: "We think in words, "
No we don't. Apparently you do, though. No reason to believe otherwise. :)
Please keep up these postings! They are very enjoyable.
Going back to "explaining" something by naming it (from a couple of your earlier posts):
e.g. Q: Why does this block fall to the floor when I let go of it? ... A: Gravity!
I always thought that such explanations were common side-effects of thinking in words. Sort of like optical illusions are side-effects of how the visual system works. Perhaps not. One does not need to use words to think symbolically. There are, after all, other ways to do lossy compression than with symbols.
Anyway, I'll still assert that it's easier to fall for such an "explanation" if you think in words. ... An easy assertion, given how hard it is to count the times one does it!
It sounds like you're pegging "intelligence" to mean what I'd call a "universal predictor". That is, something that can predict the future (or an unknown) given some information. And that it can do so given a variety of types of sets of unknowns, where "variety" involves more than a little hand-waving.
Therefore, something that catches a fly ball ("knowing" the rules of parabolic movement) can predict the future, but is not particularly "intelligent" if that's all it can do. It may be even a wee bit more "intelligent" if it can also predict where a mortar shell lands. It is even more "intelligent" if it predicts how to land a rocket on the... (read more)