Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

alex_zag_al comments on Assessing Kurzweil: the results - Less Wrong

42 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 16 January 2013 04:51PM

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

Comments (59)

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

Comment author: alex_zag_al 16 January 2013 07:28:14PM 2 points [-]

A chance rate isn't the right thing to compare to, I think. It would have to be randomly generated predictions, wouldn't it? But any non-expert human will do much better than that, since basic knowledge such as that the Earth will stay in orbit around the sun rules out most of these.

I think the right thing to compare to is if he did significantly better than I would have. Which he probably did, which means I can improve my vision of the future by reading Kurzweil.

Comment author: shminux 16 January 2013 08:31:34PM 2 points [-]

I think the right thing to compare to is if he did significantly better than I would have.

How do you know how you would have done? have you tried?