You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on XKCD - Frequentist vs. Bayesians - Less Wrong Discussion

18 Post author: brilee 09 November 2012 05:25AM

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

Comments (89)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 09 November 2012 05:09:08PM 16 points [-]

Two subtleties here:

1) The neutrino detector is evidence that the Sun has exploded. It's showing an observation which is 36^H^H 35 times more likely to appear if the Sun has exploded than if it hasn't (likelihood ratio of 35:1). The Bayesian just doesn't think that's strong enough evidence to overcome the prior odds, i.e., after multiplying the prior odds by 35 they still aren't very high.

2) If the Sun has exploded, the Bayesian doesn't lose very much from paying off this bet.

Comment author: JonathanLivengood 09 November 2012 06:58:49PM 11 points [-]

I just want to know why he's only betting $50.

Comment author: mwengler 10 November 2012 12:00:11AM 12 points [-]

Because the stupider the prediction is that somebody is making, the harder it is to get them to put their money where their mouth is. The Bayesian is hoping that $50 is a price the other guy is willing to pay to signal his affiliation with the other non-Bayesians.

Comment author: beoShaffer 10 November 2012 12:04:56AM 5 points [-]

Because its funnier that way.

Comment author: benelliott 09 November 2012 05:25:29PM 14 points [-]

Nitpick, the detector lies on double-six regardless of the outcome, so the likelihood ratio is 35:1, not 36:1.

Comment author: Decius 09 November 2012 05:51:15PM 3 points [-]

I'll bet $50 that the sun hasn't just gone nova even in the presence of a neutron detector that says it has.

If I lose, I lose what $50 is worth in a world where the sun just went nova. If I win, I win $50 worth in a world where it didn't. That's a sucker bet even as the odds of the sun just having gone nova approach 1-Epsilon.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 09 November 2012 06:50:08PM 29 points [-]

"So," the Lord Pilot finally said. "What kind of asset retains its value in a market with nine minutes to live?"

"Booze for immediate delivery," the Master of Fandom said promptly. "That's what you call a -"

"Liquidity preference," the others chorused.

Comment author: Decius 09 November 2012 11:34:05PM 0 points [-]

So, what's the default clause on a contract for booze for immediate delivery? What makes you think a rational agent will fulfill the contract?

Comment author: gwern 10 November 2012 12:23:17AM *  5 points [-]

Maybe the ship's markets are built on Bitcoin and smart contracts with capability-based architectures & automation - they can't not deliver. (Hey, it's the future...)

Comment author: roland 13 November 2012 04:02:18PM 0 points [-]

If the Sun has exploded wouldn't you also feel the heat wave when the neutrino detector has gone off since heat radiation moves at the speed of light? So if you are not feeling/seeing anything it means the Sun hasn't exploded, right?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 16 November 2012 12:48:32AM 5 points [-]

No. For example, in a supernova, the neutrinos leave the star a few hours before the light does (since they don't get slowed down by all the mass in between). That's why for example we were able to detect SN 1987A's neutrinos before the light arrived. Similarly, the Supernova Early Warning System has been set up so that astronomers can point their telescopes in the right direction before any of the light gets to us (because we can detect and pinpoint a close supernova from the burst of neutrinos).