= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Larks comments on A question about Eliezer - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (158)
It did. Per the paper, the confidences of the predictions were rated on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is "No chance of occurring" and 5 is "Definitely will occur". They didn't use this in their top-level rankings because they felt it was "accurate enough" without that, but they did use it in their regressions.
They did not. Per the paper, those were simply thrown out (as people do on PredictionBook).
I agree here, mostly. Looking through the predictions they've marked as hedging, some seem like sophistry but some seem like reasonable expressions of uncertainty; if they couldn't figure out how to properly score them they should have just left them out.
If you think you can improve on their methodology, the full dataset is here: .xls.
Sure, so we learn about how confidence is correlated with binary accuracy. But they don't take into account that being very confident and wrong should be penalised more than being slightly confident and wrong.
I misread; you are right