= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MaoShan comments on Counterfactual resiliency test for non-causal models - 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 (78)
Thanks, I see your point now. If that's the case, though, it really just boils down to "(models that we have extremely accurate data and current physical and recorded evidence for) tend to produce more accurate predictions than (models that are less so)".
Not exactly. Robin's and Kurzweil's model have more data! (as they include Moore's law as a subcomponent).
Don't you agree that Moore's law is the only trustworthy part of their models, though?
Simply pointing out that it's not just the quantity of the data that matters, but other factors too.
I think Robin's info about GDP growth throughout history is decent, too.
GDP estimates of premodern societies are highly speculative, and anyway the GDP of a premodern society was probably not a good measure of the magnitude of its economic activity.