= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jiro comments on The dangers of zero and one - 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 (68)
This immediately struck me as so very wrong. The worse you can measure, the more events you feel justified assigning zero probability?
It's strange that such claims make it out into the wild. Maybe there was additional context that made it make sense for someone once upon a time, and they generalized to an ill fitting context.
Assigning more events zero probability leaves you worse off compared to someone who makes accurate estimates, but it doesn't necessarily leave you worse off compared to someone else who measures as poorly as you and makes poorly estimated measurements..
It's a way of mitigating the damage by not being able to measure well. You're still worse off than a person who can measure well, you're just not as worse off.
No. If you'd only ever seen TAAGCC, period, you would NOT have any sort of license to completely rule out the possibility of anything else. Indeed, the probabilities should be nearly even with a little more weight given to that particular observation.
Applying the Sunrise formula seems appropriate here.