4 ms·
Seems like a recipe for bad data and undiscoverable flaws.
by monkeynotes 7y ago
Seems like a recipe for bad data and undiscoverable flaws.
- derefr 7y agoNot really; you'd probably take the Folding@Home approach† to work distribution: assign each small piece as a job to N non-trustworthy "workers" (humans, computers), and then trust the results if all N results concur. If they don't, fail the job back into the work queue to be tried again later with different workers. (And maybe give the workers a reputation score, kicking out the ones who participate in enough failed jobs.) † does this general strategy have a name?
- gvurrdon 7y agoThere's already a related climate project: https://www.climateprediction.net/ https://www.climateprediction.net/ I used to work for them a few years ago.
- Kliment 7y agoClosest I can think of is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_modular_redundancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_modular_redundancy
- xvilka 7y agoYes, it's called BOINC[1] platform. And as another comment mentioned there is already a climate prediction project[2] based on that platform. [1] https://boinc.berkeley.edu/ https://boinc.berkeley.edu/ [2] https://www.cpdn.org https://www.cpdn.org
- Angostura 7y agoNot if done correctly. See this as an excellent example: https://www.zooniverse.org/projects/zooniverse/snapshot-serengeti https://www.zooniverse.org/projects/zooniverse/snapshot-sere...
- lopmotr 7y agoiNaturalist.org does this for finding plants and animals but to be honest, I don't know how they deal with bad data. They even have schoolkids submitting data during class. So, kind of adversarial data collectors!