All of numpyNaN's Comments + Replies

Great post! Is 

Gravity only applies to those who don’t look down.

possibly a typo? Based on the context and video It feels that you might mean "Gravity only applies to those who look down."

1Sable
Fixed, thanks. There's a joke in here about getting negatives wrong when depressed...

This hit the spot for me, thanks.

I wasn't trying to hold you to that model, since it didn't seem fundamental to the point of the article (and you already mentioned not being attached to it). It was more an "oh, this reminds me of this guy" kind of thing, which might or might not be relevant to the thing in question (probably less so than I originally thought). Either way, it wasn't intended as a serious rebuttal.

In the ML example, generalization won't work when approximating a function which is a completely random jumble of points.

Nice article, minor question. You seem to be treating random functions as qualitatively different from regular/some-flavor-of-deterministic ones (please correct if not the case). Other than in mathematical settings, I'm not sure how that works, since you would expect some random noise in (or on top of) the data you are recording (and feeding your model), and that same noise would contaminate that determinism. 

Also, when approximatin... (read more)

2Martín Soto
By random I just meant "no simple underlying regularity explains it shortly". For example, a low-degree polynomial has a very short description length. While a random jumble of points doesn't (you need to write the points one by one). This of course already assumes a language.

Actually looking at the world the way someone you disagree with looks at it is often much more difficult than being able to pass their “intellectual turing test”

A somewhat relevant reference: [...] while a human might be able to imagine what it is like to be a bat by taking "the bat's point of view", it would still be impossible "to know what it is like for a bat to be a bat."

Imagine a toy model where everyone has a hundred points to put into being good at things.

(This is, to be clear, not just a toy model but an incorrect model. It's easy to look at your incoming university students and notice a strong inverse correlation between math and verbal SAT scores, forgetting that those get summed together during applications and anyone below a certain threshold probably has their application discarded. Still, let's use this model for the moment.)

Leading talents in a field maybe put 75 points in their area. Why not 100? Because you ne

... (read more)
3Screwtape
Yep, as I said in the parenthetical, the model is incorrect. I'm >95% sure that some people are twice as competent as other people and wouldn't be surprised to encounter 10x gaps or higher if we're allowed to pick from outliers in both directions. Finding an extreme polymath is a good trick if you can do it. Sometimes you can do it.
1justinpombrio
Are we assuming things are fair or something? I would have modeled this as von Neumann getting 300 points and putting 260 of them into the maths and sciences and the remaining 40 into living life and being well adjusted.
3Viliam
Yes, but such humans are very rare. Can you provide a second example of comparable quality?