= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
HoverHell comments on Assessing Kurzweil: the results - 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 (59)
And how it would be most appropriate to correct for that? Normalizing by random on all alternative predictions (that were made or that can be come up with)?
(with non-binary those graphs, as it seems to me, get relatively useless)
They are at least fairly comparable to the format in Kurzweil's self-assessment, and so useful for putting the high accuracy ratings reported there into perspective.
Estimate the complexity in bits of each prediction? ;)
How complex, in bits is: "it will rain in Oxford at some point this year"? Very. And yet, I would hesitate to call that an impressive prediction...