4 ms·
>> ...all subsequent knowledge expressed by B may be ignored. Given that we're human with a finite amount of time and attention at our disposal, it strikes me
by metaphor 10y ago
>> ...all subsequent knowledge expressed by B may be ignored.
Given that we're human with a finite amount of time and attention at our disposal, it strikes me as intuitively sensible that we tend towards (but never firmly settling on) this outcome, especially where instances of N >> K...a sort of "survival of the fittest" feedback loop, if you will. I think Johnny Lee's analogy framed in the context of the user experience[1] is applicable here.
>> ...it effectively assumes that A's knowledge is a superset of B, and that A's rate of knowledge aquisition is greater than that of B for all T.
Sounds like narcissism. Surely we can have our pragmatic feedback loop without deteriorating into such a state.
[1] https://youtu.be/kuhVfuhCcG4?t=220 https://youtu.be/kuhVfuhCcG4?t=220
- dan-compton 10y ago> it strikes me as intuitively sensible... This might be intuitive if A weighted each N of some class equally, and N>>Kevin for each _class_, but observation indicates this is not the case. Also certain N tend to be overweighted regardless of the knowledge class to which they belong. IRL I have observed that B can work around A's bias by framing knowledge expressed as a question. > Sounds like narcissism. I think this is a common bias with implications in the "machine consciousness" question, but I'll have to wait ton finish that point. Look for an edit.
- metaphor 10y agoWhy do I feel like I just failed a bloodninja-style Turing test.