wnoise comments on Bayesian Collaborative Filtering - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (23)
I'm the founder of TakeOnIt, so let me add a little here.
JGWeissman's algorithm, or an evolution of it based on the feedback here, will be replacing the crude algorithm that's already online. You can see the results of that algorithm here:
Predicting Eliezer Yudkowsky's Opinions
If anyone else needs access to the database let me know.
Part of the vision here is to help people choose their beliefs in areas where they don't have domain expertise. This concept was described here.
In addition, this technique can also be used to detect correct contrarian opinions, as described here. The algorithm will predict that person S should believe in a minority opinion I if S has similar opinions to the set of people T, where T hold the opinion I.
I've finally taken a look at this site. I'm strongly tempted to add H.P. Lovecraft quotes to many issues, but of course he's not an expert in the relevant senses, and the easily findable quotes are from fiction which should not generally be taken as his own.
Based on your idea and the discussion that followed, I've added the feature to flag a quote as fictional.
On the question pages, fictional quotes are put in their own group:
Is information-theoretic death the most real interpretation of death?
On the expert pages, fictional quotes are flagged per quote:
H.P.Lovercraft's Opinions
Fictional quotes are discounted from the prediction analysis.
Thinking out loud (this could be a terrible idea, "green hat" thinking alert!): I wonder if it would be interesting to be able to tag a quote as "fiction". There's so many insightful quotes that are spoken through the fictional characters of great authors. It seems a shame that such quotes are "illegitimate". Better to perhaps allow the quotes but tag them appropriately so they can be filtered out of prediction analysis. Thoughts?
How would they be attributed? Valentine Michael's opinions are substantially different from Lazarus Long's.
Simple model: a flag on a quote, present if it's a fictional character, with text preceding the quote explaining the source.
Complex model: Each fictional character is on par with an expert/influencer, with an extra field referencing back to the expert/influencer who's the author. E.g. you could look up all the quotes of "Sherlock Holmes" or all the fictional quotes of characters written by Arthur Conan Doyle.
It seems worth trying, if you want to code it up. While it certainly doesn't make much sense to base predictions about others based on quite possibly incoherent groupings of characters, predicting the other way could be interesting.
But it does occur to me that I could just create user account and post them there, though that wouldn't let others add quotes.
I generally include the name of the character along with the rest.
That doesn't always work -- sometimes it's from an impersonal narrator.
Point - "Narrator", perhaps?