I'm currently researching forecasting and epistemics as part of the Quantified Uncertainty Research Institute.
Thanks! Yea, this is quite similar to Guesstimate. I think and hope that in the future estimation/monte carlo tech will be closely integrated with forecasting systems.
Thanks for the suggestion. My background is more in engineering than probability, so have been educating myself on probability and probability related software for this. I've looked into copulas a small amount but wasn't sure how tractable they would be. I'll investigate further.
Thanks for the feedback!It's a good point. This is a kind of thing I've been wrestling a lot, though of course is fairly surface level compared to the main architecture.
I don't have a personal preference on this. I agree that mixture is more technically correct term, but it seems like many (not very technical people) find "multimodal" more intuitive. To many people I think "mixture" sounds more generic, as from where they are standing, "mixture" could mean several things.
I'll keep the option in mind and ask for further preferences.
I'm not sure what you are looking for. Most people know very little in the space of all the things one could find out in books and the like, much which is useful to some extent. If you're curious what things I specifically think are true but the public doesn't yet know of, then continue to read my blog posts; it's a fair bit of stuff, but rather specific.
There are a few options with the $15/month package with Immersed. No forest, but there is one above the clouds, and one in a cave (no treasure though). With the free package you just get a few 360 photos to choose from (no depth)Other apps have more options, but they only support Windows generally.
The default strap. It's not that great, but for me, tolerable. I'm giving it a few months before upgrading, as I'm hoping more straps will be available. (the Oculus ones are sold out)
Fixed, thanks! It was a small error in how the url was typed.
Comparing groups of forecasters who worked on different question sets only using simple accuracy measures like brier scores is basically not feasible. You're right that forecasters can prioritize easier questions and do other hacks. This post goes into detail on several incentive problems:https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ztmBA8v6KvGChxw92/incentive-problems-with-current-forecasting-competitionsI don't get the impression that platforms like Metaculus or GJP bias their questions much to achieve higher brier scores. This is one reason why they typically focus more on their calibration graphs, and on direct question comparisons between platforms.
All that said, I definitely think we have a lot of room to get better at doing comparisons of forecasting between platforms.
Kudos for the thinking here, I like the take.
There's a whole lot to "making people more correct about things." I'm personally a lot less focused on trying to make sure the "masses" believe things we already know, than I am in improving the epistemic abilities of "best" groups. From where I'm standing, I imagine even the "best" people have a long way to improve. I personally barely feel confident about a bunch of things and am looking for solutions where I could be more confident. More "super intense next level prediction markets" and less "fighting conspiracy theories".
I do find the topic of epistemics of "the masses" to be interesting, it's just different. CSER did some work in this area, and I also liked the podcast about Taiwan's approach to it (treating lies using epidemic models, similar to how you mention.)
I guess to me it didn't seem too bad. I've found that talking to people with simple avatars in VR and similar seems surprisingly fine, I'd imagine that in practice you'd get used to this. That said, I also imagine the technology will continue to improve. Deepfakes are getting quite realistic.