W. F. Donkin wrote:
"When several hypotheses are presented to our mind which we believe to be
mutually exclusive and exhaustive, but about which we know nothing further, we
distribute our belief equally among them This being admitted as an account
of the way in which we actually do distrib
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:59 AM Roger Critchlow wrote:
>
>
>> When several hypotheses are presented to our mind which we believe to be
>> mutually exclusive and exhaustive, but about which we know nothing further,
>> we distribute our belief equally among them This being admitted as an
>> ac
Following up Daston's paper on the origins of objective and subjective
probability, one of the files that ended up in my Downloads folder was
http://www.fitelson.org/probability/ramsey.pdf, a collection of three
essays by Frank P. Ramsey on probability. HackerNews came up with a link
to Cheryl Mis
Physical vs Metaphysical is probably dragging my own deviant concept of
Objective vs Subjective into the foreground, as well as my rhetorical
style.
I think that concrete vs. abstract is identifying categories of conceived
object, while perceptual vs. higher-level is identifying the amount of
reas
I'm struggling to reconcile something she said from the presentation with
what's said in the paper. In the presentation, she said (my probably flawed
transcription) "The original vision was: we'd ask about concrete things. And
we'd ask about abstract things. And we were expecting to see more agr
If you're deviant and you know it, clap your hands!
The sub-fact I liked, which might be in the Daxxy paper, is that people are
very good at evaluating their certainty with respect to facts about the
physical environment, but that same feeling of certainty is all over the
place respecting the meta
Ha! "There's a fun sub-result, which is, if you have a very deviant concept
... if you have a very weirdo concept that other people don't share, you're
actually much more likely to be aware that you have a deviant concept."
At least I *know* I'm a deviant.
On 12/29/19 8:43 AM, Roger Critchlow
I thought she was arguing that very mechanisms that google, facebook,
twitter, etc. are using right now to engage people's interest online are
already engendering and entrenching all sorts of weird beliefs. 6-9
minutes of activated charcoal advocacy videos and you're probably certain
that black sm
Marcus -
I do like the idea that a good "comedy team" might effectively
de-weaponize deep-fakes... like The Yes Men or SNL perhaps... there
is the risk that such "normalizes" deep fakes, but to the extent that it
is already on it's way... comedy-ifying may be the best (least-worst)
alternativ
Steve writes:
< I don't know how deeply technical the presumed election-manipulation of 2016
(now 2020) is, but it *does* seem like the work you reference here implies that
with the information venues/vectors like streaming video (TV, Movies, Clips,
attendant advertising) and social media (FB/I
REC -
Good find!
I am not closely following the development and results of GAN work, but
it seems like this kind of study explicates at least ONE GOOD REASON for
worrying about AI changing the nature of the world as we know it (even
if it isn't a precise existential threat). Convolved with Carl
This talk was mentioned on hacker news this week and inspired my babbling
at Saveur this morning. https://slideslive.com/38921495/how-to-know. The
talk was delivered at Neural IPS on December 9 and discusses recent
research on how people come to believe they know something.
This paper https://ww
12 matches
Mail list logo