= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Christian_Szegedy comments on The Absent-Minded Driver - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (139)
Because crazy smart people don't consistently reach solutions. It's not surprising when they're right, but it's not surprising when they're wrong, either. There are very few people I know such that I'm surprised when they seem to get something wrong, and the key factor in that judgment is high sanity, more than high intelligence.
I'm also beginning to have a very strange thought that a reddit-derived blog system with comment upvoting and karma is just a vastly more effective way of researching decision-theory problems than publication in peer-reviewed journals.
Chess World Champions are sometimes notoriously superstitious, you can still rely on the consistency of their chess moves.
They really ought to be, what's the rational value in putting the time and effort into chess to become a world champion at it.
I played it semi-seriously when I was young, but gave it up when in order to get to the next level I'd have to study more than play. Most of the people I know who were good at a competitive intellectual game dropped out of school to pursue it, because they couldn't handle studying at that level for both.
I find it rather difficult to believe that pursuing chess over school is the rationally optimal choice, so I wouldn't be remotely surprised to find that those who get to that level are irrational or superstitious when it comes to non-chess problems.
Chess provides very strong objective feedback on what does and doesn't work.
... as opposed to what?
Psychotherapy - recommended reading is Robyn Dawes' House of Cards.
No, you can't. In 2006, world chess champion Vladimir Kramnik accidentally left himself open to mate in one when playing against computer program Deep Fritz (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3509). Even the very best individual humans are all subject to simple mistakes of types that computers simply don't ever make.
This is irrelevant. Human players make mistakes. The question is whether being superstitious makes them make more mistakes.
It's not just chess - here's two 9dan go players, one of them misthinking and killing his own group: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt1FvPxmmfE
Such spectacular mistakes are not entirely unknown in go, even in top level title matches.
In pro-level shogi it's even worse, as illegal moves (which are instant lose) are supposedly not at all uncommon.
The original question was not whether humans make mistakes (they do in every area, this is undisputed) but whether irrationality in one domain makes more unreliable in others.
No, the original question was whether we should be surprised when humans make mistakes, and what influences the probability of them doing so. The occasional grandmaster bluder shows that even for extremely smart humans within their field of expertise, the human mind effectively has a noise floor - ie, some minimum small probability of making stupid random decisions. Computers, on the other hand, have a much lower noise floor (and can be engineered to make it arbitrarily low).
You shouldn't be surprised that a chess world champion has made a mistake over the course of their entire career. However, given a specific turn, you should be surprised if the world champion made a mistake in that turn. That is, given any turn, you can rely on their making a good move on that turn. You can't rely with perfect confidence, of course, but that wasn't the claim.
Even chess computers can blunder, it seems.