Comment author: kilobug 27 August 2012 10:45:20AM 4 points [-]

Do you know any game (video or board game, singleplayer or multiplayer, for adults or kids, I'm interested in all) that makes good use of rationality skills, and train them ?

For example, we could imagine a "Trivial Pursuit" game in which you give your answer, and how confident you're in it. If you're confident in it, you earn more if you're right, but you lose more if you're wrong.

Role-playing games do teach quite some on probabilities, it helps "feel" what is a 1% chance, or what it means to have higher expectancy but higher deviation. Card games like poker probably do too, even if I never played much poker.

Comment author: bradm 27 August 2012 07:36:25PM 7 points [-]

The board game "Wits and Wagers" might qualify for what you are looking for. Game play is roughly as follows: A trivia question is asked and the answer is always a number (e.g., "How many cups of coffee does the average American drink each year?", "How wide, in feet, is an American football field?"). All the players write their estimate on a slip of paper and then then they are arranged in numerical order on the board. Everybody then places a bet on the estimate they like the best (it doesn't have to be your own). The estimates near the middle have a low payback (1:1, 2:1) and the estimates near the outside have a larger payback (4:1). If your estimate is closest to the actual number or if you bet on that one, will get a payback on your bet.

Comment author: bradm 05 July 2012 02:53:58PM *  5 points [-]

I haven't used a trampoline since I was a teenager. My neighbors had round one that I would guess was 12-15' in diameter. There were numerous injuries that I can recall, the worst being a broken leg. All of the injuries that I recall were due to what I would consider (now) to be inappropriate use. We would play dodge ball where one or more people would be on the trampoline and people off of the trampoline would throw a ball at them. I chipped a tooth doing that. Sometimes we would put a lawn sprinkler underneath the trampoline if it was really hot. I believe that is how the broken leg occurred. We did many other less stupid but still somewhat risky things, too, like doing front and back flips and seeing how high we could jump.

My point, though, is that if you do find any safety statistics take into account how they compare to how you would actually use it. Do the stats take into account the stupid things teenagers do on them?

Comment author: bradm 05 July 2012 03:06:47PM *  0 points [-]

And yeah ... they ARE large amounts of fun.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 05 July 2012 02:38:40AM 5 points [-]

This is not a product recommendation, but a request - it looks to me like trampolines should be large amounts of fun. However, when I tried to look up risk statistics, I found lots of dire warnings and, of course, no numerical annual risk statistics at all, or any attempt to adjust for safer trampolines with surrounding safety netting. My one attempt to calculate risk statistics on my own output a 0.1% chance of an injury requiring hospitalization per year of trampoline use. That's probably more risk than somebody in my position should take on, even for the sake of exercise. Does anyone know of more accurate statistics than this, or a safer trampoline with recorded risk statistics, or have a strong opinion on whether trampolines are safe enough to use?

Comment author: bradm 05 July 2012 02:53:58PM *  5 points [-]

I haven't used a trampoline since I was a teenager. My neighbors had round one that I would guess was 12-15' in diameter. There were numerous injuries that I can recall, the worst being a broken leg. All of the injuries that I recall were due to what I would consider (now) to be inappropriate use. We would play dodge ball where one or more people would be on the trampoline and people off of the trampoline would throw a ball at them. I chipped a tooth doing that. Sometimes we would put a lawn sprinkler underneath the trampoline if it was really hot. I believe that is how the broken leg occurred. We did many other less stupid but still somewhat risky things, too, like doing front and back flips and seeing how high we could jump.

My point, though, is that if you do find any safety statistics take into account how they compare to how you would actually use it. Do the stats take into account the stupid things teenagers do on them?

Comment author: bradm 05 July 2012 02:26:42PM 0 points [-]

Gorillapod. Works great, helps me take awesome pictures.

Comment author: steven0461 19 March 2012 05:30:59AM 10 points [-]
Comment author: bradm 20 March 2012 04:10:57PM 2 points [-]

I think you mean this.

In response to [Link] Duolingo
Comment author: Thomas 04 January 2012 04:13:45PM 0 points [-]

They say, Wikipedia could be translated from English to Spanish in just 80 hours their way.

I doubt, it would be without major errors.

Never the less, it is a moderately interesting idea.

In response to comment by Thomas on [Link] Duolingo
Comment author: bradm 04 January 2012 08:58:49PM 3 points [-]

I doubt, it would be without major errors.

I don't see why it can't be done without major errors. My understanding is that they give the same text to be translated to a large number of users and then use an algorithm to find the most probable translation. Whether there are "major errors" will depend on how well it is implemented.

[Link] Duolingo

8 bradm 04 January 2012 02:39PM

Yesterday I heard about an interesting new project called Duolingo.  For some background, see this TEDx Talk by one of the creators, Luis von Ahn.  It is a crowdsourcing approach to language translation, where the users learn a foreign language while translating.  I've signed up but I haven't received an invitation yet to start.  Once I start using it, I will provide updates on its effectiveness.

[LINK]: Interview with Daniel Kahneman

5 bradm 29 November 2011 08:02PM

Here is a Q & A with Daniel Kahneman.  He gives a brief answer to a question about heuristics and AI:

 

Q.With the launch of Siri and a stated aim to be using the data collected to improve the performance of its AI, should we expect these types of quasi-intelligences to develop the same behavioral foibles that we exhibit, or should we expect something completely different? And if something different, would that something be more likely to reflect the old “rational” assumptions of behavior, or some totally other emergent set of biases and quirks based on its own underlying architecture? My money’s on emergent weirdness, but then, I don’t have a Nobel Prize.-Peter Bennett

A.Emergent weirdness is a good bet. Only deduction is certain. Whenever an inductive short-cut is applied, you can search for cases in which it will fail. It is always useful to ask “What relevant factors are not considered?” and “What irrelevant factors affect the conclusions?” By their very nature, heuristic shortcuts will produce biases, and that is true for both humans and artificial intelligence, but the heuristics of AI are not necessarily the human ones.

Comment author: TrE 29 November 2011 05:36:53PM *  3 points [-]

Awesome! Does anyone know whether the course material will stay up after the classes are completed? I won't have enough time to take all classes I'm interested in (actually, I'll probably not have the time for a single one of them) but would like to use them later.

Comment author: bradm 29 November 2011 05:44:25PM 3 points [-]

I haven't taken previous classes, but it appears that all the videos from previous courses are available but all the homework is closed to the course.

Comment author: Nisan 29 November 2011 04:44:34AM *  7 points [-]

Sometimes with small children, I get the impression they're asking "why?" for the social interaction rather than to actually get answers.

The story I tell myself about this is that at some point every child learns that there is a magic word, "why", that always keeps a conversation going. I will test this hypothesis the next time a kid does this to me by responding with nonsense.

"Why?"

"Because zebra donkey tomatillos."

"Why?"

"See, you're not even listening."

"Why?"

Comment author: bradm 29 November 2011 02:56:58PM *  7 points [-]

This reminds me of Louis CK's bit about kids asking "why?"

Louis C. K.: Because some things are and some things are not!

Daughter: Why?

Louis: Because things that are not can't be!

Daughter: Why?

Louis: Because then nothing wouldn't be! You can't have nothing isn't! Everything is!

Daughter: Why?

Louis: Because if nothing wasn't, there would be all kinds of shit that we don't like. Giant ants with top hats dancing around. There isn't room for that shit!

View more: Next