What is your feedback? The degrees-of-freedom problem might be far larger in other contexts, but the fact that the issue is manageable in Tetlockian contexts presumably counts as at least a little bit of positive evidence. I'm not sure which is overall more problematic, at the moment, in part because I'm not sure how people actually should be integrating different considerations in domains like AI forecasting.
The online world we inhabit so much of the time notoriously makes it easy for identities to be stolen, and what can be stolen can be bought and sold. What I said was: This is not Tetlock's advice, nor is it the lesson from the forecasting tournaments, especially if we use the nebulous modern definition of "outside view" instead of the original definition. Hepburn spoke with a voice of age that made sense. The logic is "Ah, I should update downward on this claim, since experts in domain X disagree with it and I think that experts in domain X will typically be right. All we have is each other pure taboo. She wasn't really very old, but her death was in sight. Search in Shakespeare. Psychoanalytic speculations aside, it does not usually take much reflection to work out our faults, vices, and weaknesses. Superforecasters doing well by extrapolating are extrapolating a time-series over 20 years, which was a straight line over those 20 years, to another 5 years out along the same line with the same error bars, and then using that as the baseline for further adjustments with due epistemic humility about how sometimes straight lines just get interrupted some year.
I think we should do our best to imitate these best-practices, and that means using the outside view far more than we would naturally be inclined. Myth: Your relief mean you hated the person and wanted them to die. The creative daemon is really only a daemon when you let it reach into your fears and your avarices. But I think the best intervention, in this case, is probably just to push the ideas "outside views are often given too much weight" or "heavily reliance on outside views shouldn't be seen as praiseworthy" or "the correct way to integrate outside views with more inside-view reasoning is X. " Separately, various people seem to think that the appropriate way to make forecasts is to (1) use some outside-view methods, (2) use some inside-view methods, but only if you feel like you are an expert in the subject, and then (3) do a weighted sum of them all using your intuition to pick the weights.
It is simply easier to continue to be bad than to become bad, as Aristotle famously taught. But we know that judgments about others can be favourable, or neutral, and if negative can be slight, or less critical than they might be. 56 Here is an attempt at a summary: I'm less sure about the direct relevance of Inadequate Equilibria for this, apart from it making the more general point that ~"people should be less scared of relying on their own intuition / arguments / inside view". From this, concluded the jurists, we were given the model for treating all criminal defendants. Still, I cannot claim that the Bible made me reach this conclusion. Knowing what they are is not the problem so much as doing something about them. Or: "I understand economic incentives, or understand social dynamics around secret-keeping, so I know it's unlikely this information would be kept secret. " Now I'll try to say what I think your position is: 1. Evariste Galois was a Romantic prototype, of course. Jennifer Knust will talk about her new book, Unprotected Texts: The Bible's Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire, at 7 p. m. today, February 16, at Barnes & Noble at BU, level five Reading Room, 660 Beacon St., Kenmore Square. Circumstances are often capable of multiple interpretations, but even if none are favourable this does not mean we may put the worst interpretation on them. "He also characterizes current AI behaviors as "insectlike" and writes: "I believe that robots with human intelligence will be common within fifty years. You can find What's Your Grief?
The same applies to any individual who has experienced a series of disappointments in life. I also do think that Tetlock's studies remain at least somewhat relevant when judging the potential usefulness of the heuristic. It is more than a mere suspicion, supposition or the entertaining of a possibility. As a last thought here (no need to respond), I thought it might useful to give one example of a concrete case where: (a) Tetlock's work seems relevant, and I find the terms "inside view" and "outside view" natural to use, even though the case is relatively different from the ones Tetlock has studied; and (b) I think many people in the community have tended to underweight an "outside view. If the things in the first Big List were indeed super diverse and disconnected from the evidence in Tetlock's studies etc., then there would indeed be no good reason to bundle them together under one term. The computers in the seventies had a computing power comparable to that of insects. But there is a difference between making a judgment and being judgmental. He took charge of an organic chemistry group there. I guess the pro-causal/deductive bias often feels more salient to me, but I don't really want to make any confident claim here that it actually is more powerful. I've tried to explain why in the post.
Perhaps focusing on morality, especially morality in the bedroom, makes it possible for us to avoid facing other, more intractable problems. Her education was catch-as-catch-can. If Gregory sees Helen trespassing on Ian's land, absent some special situation Gregory has no obligation to evict Helen. Pauling said, "Oh, why let's see.
You have seen that the universe is at root a magical illusion and a fabulous game, and that there is no separate "you" to get something out of it, as if life were a bank to be robbed. The myth of the lonely inventor is just that. A court might presume a defendant guilty yet still give him a fair trial, with the burden of proof now resting on him to prove his innocence. Reality: You wanted to escape the relationship. I'd be more inclined to tread carefully if some historical people tried to actually compare the behavior of their AI system to the behavior of an insect and found it comparable as in posts like this one (it's not clear to me how such an evaluation would have suggested insect-level robotics in the 90s or even today, I think the best that can be said is that today it seems compatible with insect-level robotics in simulation today). R & D labs were well known by then. Nature and nurture conspire in the architecture of this illusion of separateness, which Watts argues begins in childhood as our parents, our teachers, and our entire culture "help us to be genuine fakes, which is precisely what is meant by 'being a real person. '" What we should be aiming at is to earn and maintain a good name, that is, to have a good name that is true. The eyes touch, or feel, light waves and so enable us to touch things out of reach of our hands.
Fact: What you wanted was for your loved one's addiction to end so their suffering could be over and so that they could be the person they were before their addiction. If Nancy does not care that a handful of her work colleagues know she is cheating on her husband with her boss, she cannot expect her colleagues to refrain from judging her behaviour (assuming they disapprove, of course). When in reality you can be super sad and also a little relieved at the same time because emotions aren't mutually exclusive. Insofar as this work is being done, though, the Bostrom/Moravec/Brooks cases become weaker grounds for suspicion. Born at Hanover, March 16, 1750. If I don't invent when risk is dangerous, can I really expect to suddenly turn creative when risk is gone? Somerville had been born Mary Fairfax in a small town on the Firth of Forth. This does not imply that the process is irrational. That wonderful imagined voice speaking to Galois, Watch. Therefore, you don't do anything wrong by depriving him of his reputation, say by declaring his faults to the world (assuming you know them).
In this case, you're not doing any deductive reasoning about the claim itself or relying on any causal models that directly bear on the claim. It's easy to slip into because a lot of people in our community seem to be holding it, and when you squint it's sorta similar to what Tetlock said. That's the kind of mathematics that includes Fermat's famous Last Theorem. I hadn't yet seen the recent post you linked to, which, at first glance, seems like a good and clear piece of work. By the time he published his last paper, decades later, he was 101. How exactly should they use them? The only thing is that I don't necessarily agree with 3a. In moral matters, rashness does not consist in a simple disproportion between judgment and evidence. I hadn't considered that it might be almost entirely a quip. It's still better than pure intuition though, probably, for reasons mentioned. Being prone to vice as we all are, we tend to spread it around liberally.