DaFranker comments on 2012 Survey Results - Less Wrong

80 Post author: Yvain 07 December 2012 09:04PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (640)

Comments (640)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: DaFranker 09 January 2013 03:45:53PM * 4 points [-]

As far as I know, it's been formally demonstrated to be the absolutely mathematically-optimal method of achieving maximal hypothesis accuracy in an environment with obscured, limited or unreliable information.

That's basically saying: "There is no possible way to do better than this using mathematics, and as far as we know there doesn't yet exist anything more powerful than mathematics."

What more could you want? A theorem proving that any optimal decision theory must necessarily use Bayesian updating? ETA: It has been pointed out that there already exists such a theorem. I could've found that out by looking it up. Oops.

Comment author: [deleted] 10 January 2013 01:56:22PM * 3 points [-]

What more could you want? A theorem proving that any optimal decision theory must necessarily use Bayesian updating?

There already is such a theorem. From Wikipedia:

A decision-theoretic justification of the use of Bayesian inference was given by Abraham Wald, who proved that every Bayesian procedure is admissible. Conversely, every admissible statistical procedure is either a Bayesian procedure or a limit of Bayesian procedures.

Comment author: pengvado 10 January 2013 11:50:31PM 2 points [-]

As far as I can tell from wikipedia's description of admissibility, it makes the same assumptions as CDT: That the outcome depends only on your action and the state of the environment, and not on any other properties of your algorithm. This assumption fails in multi-player games.

So your quote actually means: If you're going to use CDT then Bayes is the optimal way to derive your probabilities.

Comment author: Peterdjones comment score below threshold [+] (10 children)

Comment author: gwern 09 January 2013 06:07:48PM 0 points [-]

And the list of notable problems that have been solved using Bayes is...?

Half of statistics these days is Bayesian. Do you want to defend the claim that statistics solves no notable problems?

PS: -T-w-o- Three downvotes, and not a shred of counteargument. Typical.

As usual, I add my downvote to whining about downvotes. Since you think it's 'typical' and this vindicates your claims, I'm sure you'll be pleased that I'm helping prove you right.

Comment author: Peterdjones 09 January 2013 06:16:16PM * 0 points [-]

Half of statistics these days is Bayesia

Great. Then the UK education sytem is exactly right in teaching Bayes as part of statitistics, but not as a general-prupose solution to everything. ETA: But surely the LW take on Bayes is that it is much more than something useful in statistics.

Do you want to defend the claim that statistics solves no notable problems?

No, I want to defend the claims that Bayes is not as a general-prupose solution to everything, is not a substitute for other congnitive disciplines, is of no benefit to many people and is of no use in many contexts.

As usual, I add my downvote to whining about downvotes

Please inform me of the correct way to indicate that the karma system is being misused.

Comment author: gwern 09 January 2013 06:25:58PM 1 point [-]

Great. Then the UK education sytem is exactly right in teaching Bayes as part of statitistics, but not as a general-prupose solution to everything. ETA: But surely the LW take on Bayes is that it is much more than something useful in statistics.

Now you're just backing off your claim. What happened to your list?

Then the UK education sytem is exactly right in teaching Bayes as part of statitistics, but not as a general-prupose solution to everything.

First point: if Bayesian statistics is half of statistics, the description of the UK course is of it as being way way less than half the course. Therefore the UK system is very far from being 'exactly right'.

Second point: The optimistic meta-induction is that Bayesian statistics has gone from being used by a literal handful of statisticians to being widespread and possibly a majority now or in the near future; therefore, it will continue spreading and eating more of statistics in general, and the course will get wronger and wronger, and your claims less and less right.

No, I want to defend the claims that Bayes is not as a general-prupose solution to everything, is not a substitute for other congnitive disciplines, is of no benefit to many people and is of no use in many contexts.

So you're just splashing around a lot of bullshit and distractions when you demand lists and talk about the UK course being exactly right, since those aren't what you are actually trying to claim. Good to know!

Please inform me of the correct way to indicate that the karma system is being misused.

What's the point of indicating when it's not being misused?

Comment author: Peterdjones 09 January 2013 06:32:46PM * -1 points [-]

I am not going to give a full response, because your comments are obstreporous, but See RichardKennaway's discussion for LW's oeverarching hopes for Bayes, and its limitations

What's the point of indicating when it's not being misused?

You have your opinion, on that, I have mine. You can state your opinion, I can't state mine. I can't discuss the censorship, because discussions of censorship are censored.

Comment author: gwern 09 January 2013 06:34:11PM 0 points [-]

You're stating it right now. Oh the ironing.

Comment author: Peterdjones 09 January 2013 06:38:13PM * -1 points [-]

It's in a downvoted thread.So it isn't visible.If negative karma doesn't do anything regarding the visibility of comments, why have the button? Sheesh.

Comment author: gwern 09 January 2013 06:42:25PM 1 point [-]

It's in a downvoted thread.So it isn't visible.

And so begins the equivocation on 'people have to click a button to see it' with 'censorship'.

Comment author: Peterdjones 09 January 2013 06:45:49PM -1 points [-]

And so I ask you a second time: what is the button for?

continue this thread »

DaFranker comments on 2012 Survey Results - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (640)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (640)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login