= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
torekp comments on A call for solutions and a tease of mine - 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 (51)
Needs more specification. Is the judge a member of the group? Selected in advance (how?)?
The judge is a mathematical construction. I just mean that you use bayes rule in a well-defined way that everyone can agree on to take opinions and such as evidence.
Not sure how it would turn out, haven't thought much. Should be able to do at least as well as prediction markets, tho.
That really sounds like a mysterious answer to me. Is there anything more to this than 'Bayesian agent which inputs opinions and outputs awesome decisions'?
There is no internal detail yet, but this is not a mysterious answer.
What I said was basically "there exists a mathematical procedure for this problem that you would get if you went thru a derivation starting with bayes rule." I don't know how it works because I have not done the math. Optimality and uniqueness theorems suggest it should be at least as good as a prediction market (because at worst you just pull the bayes structure out of a prediction market), you could probably do much better, tho.
If that is a mysterious answer, the term means very little.
If you want detail, imagine naive bayes over people's opinions of various proposals. Or something. That's the 30 seconds of thought version, you could probably do a lot better in 5 minutes.
Didn't have any of that background information, sorry.
You're right, though, this isn't a mysterious answer.