homunq comments on CFAR in 2014: Continuing to climb out of the startup pit, heading toward a full prototype - Less Wrong

61 Post author: AnnaSalamon 26 December 2014 03:33PM

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

Comments (73)

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

Comment author: Lumifer 24 February 2015 04:21:47PM 2 points [-]

I presume you're saying that utility-based simulations are not credible, because they're clearly numerical estimates.

Actually, no, that's not what I mean. I have no problems with numerical estimates in general.

What I mean by "credible", in this context, is "shown to be relevant to real-life situations" and "supported by empirical data".

You've constructed a model. You've played with this model and have an idea of how it behaves in different regimes. That's all fine. But then you imply that this model reflects the real world and it's at this point that I start to get sceptical and ask for evidence. Not evidence of how your model works, but evidence that the map matches the territory.

Comment author: homunq 24 February 2015 04:48:34PM *  0 points [-]

(small note: the sentence you quote from me was unclear. "because" related to "presume", not "saying". But your response to what I accidentally said is still largely cogent in relation to what I meant to say, so the miscommunication isn't important. Still, I've corrected the original. Future readers: lumifer quoted me correctly.)