DanielLC comments on [SEQ RERUN] Nonperson Predicates - Less Wrong

1 Post author: MinibearRex 13 January 2013 09:50AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (7)
Tags: sequence_reruns

Comments (7)

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

Comment author: DanielLC 13 January 2013 11:01:48PM 2 points [-]

The problem with training isn't purposely creating things that pass. It's purposely creating things that don't. In order to figure out what doesn't pass, we need a predicate function. Once we've figured out how to find things that won't pass, we've already found the answer.

Comment author: anotherblackhat 15 January 2013 09:39:27PM *  0 points [-]

Doesn't follow. Consider;

I claim a rock is a non-person.
I expect you accept that statement, I expect that you therefore have a non-person predicate function, yet I also expect you haven't found the answer.

I accept that in order to classify something, we need to be able to classify it.

I'm suggesting there might be a function that classifies some things incorrectly, and is still useful.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit