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.

Gunnar_Zarncke comments on [link] Large Social Networks can be Targeted for Viral Marketing with Small Seed Sets - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Gunnar_Zarncke 01 September 2014 10:03AM

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

Comments (12)

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

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 03 September 2014 09:37:27PM 3 points [-]

Human social networks don't exactly work like that.

Apparently they do. The study references e.g. “The Spread of Behavior in an Online Social Network Experiment,” which is an controlled social network of real humans exhibiting basically this behavior:

Comment author: Lumifer 04 September 2014 12:43:31AM 3 points [-]

First, it's an artificial, experimental network of real humans. Second, the adoption rates in that study top out at 50-60%. The paper in the OP concerned itself with finding a seed set which will produce a 100% adoption.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 04 September 2014 06:42:19AM 2 points [-]

For real human of course you need a more detailed model than the simple linear threadshold one which was amenable to optimization by their algorithm. With a more detailed model they probably wouldn't have been able to reach 100% but wouldn't have tried to (e.g. if there is a non-adaption term I'd have strived for 100% divided by the non-adaption rate or something). But that doesn't mean that you can tipp tippable populations.