Ah, I see the ambiguity now. My mistake; thank you for the explanation!
EDIT: You know, I keep getting tripped up by this sort of thing. I don't know if it's because English isn't my first language (although I've known it for over two decades), or if it's just a general failing. Anyway, correction accepted.
As a part of my work for MIRI on the "Can we know what to do about AI?" project, I read Nate Silver's book The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail — but Some Don't. I compiled a list of the takeaway points that I found most relevant to the project. I think that they might be of independent interest to the Less Wrong community, and so am posting them here.
Because I've paraphrased Silver rather than quoting him, and because the summary is long, there may be places where I've inadvertently misrepresented Silver. A reader who's especially interested in a point should check the original text.
Main Points
Chapter Summaries
Introduction
Increased access to information can do more harm than good. This is because the more information is available, the easier it is for people to cherry-pick information that supports their pre-existing positions, or to perceive patterns where there are none.
The invention of the printing press may have given rise to religious wars on account of facilitating the development of ideological agendas.
Chapter 1: The failure to predict the 2008 housing bubble and recession
Chapter 2: Political Predictions
Chapter 3: Baseball predictions
Chapter 4: Weather Predictions
Chapter 5: Earthquake predictions:
Chapter 6:
Chapter 7: Disease Outbreaks
Chapter 8: Bayes' Theorem
Chapter 9: Chess computers
Chapter 10: Poker
Chapter 11: The stock market
Chapter 12: Climate change
Chapter 13: Terrorism