7 ms·

Not saying you are wrong but I learned to ride a bike by watching my classmates be taught in preschool. Maybe direct acting is a quicker learning method. Or ma

• beaconstudios 6y ago
  First, you make a mental model. Then, you test it. If you don't test it then you don't know if it works, and you can't improve on it. Knowledge is derived from experience.
  • musingsole 6y ago
    Scoring a model's predictions are a means of testing the model without having it coupled to the system under observation. Observation is a type of experience.
    • Jtsummers 6y ago
      And you can gain experience/understanding without needing to either observe or directly experience something, merely by thinking about it or being told about it. Not every kid has to be or see a burn caused by touching a hot stove to learn it's a bad idea to try it. If you require actual experience or direct observation to learn, then you're not using your brain to its full potential.
      • shkkmo 6y ago
        You can certainly generalized previously gained knowledge without direct experience in that particular instance. Would a child who has never experienced the human body's pain response be able to infer the causal connection between the heat of a stove and the response after touching it? Arguably, language is a tool that allows us to generalize the direct experience of other agents. It is unclear if it is possible to remove direct interaction from a learning system and still reach the same level of understanding.
    • beaconstudios 6y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean by "without having it coupled to the system under observation" - could you clarify? I do agree that observation is a type of experience, but a model that is meant to guide action (basically any useful model) needs to be tested in action. I can't learn to juggle only by watching other people juggle. I can only develop a hypothesis about how one juggles, but to test (and refine) it is to try the hypothesis out.
      • musingsole 6y ago
        A model being coupled to a system == a model that can influence the system's state through a means > a model that is meant to guide action (basically any useful model) needs to be tested in action No, it doesn't. For example, the vast majority of work on modeling the stock market is done on machines completely sandboxed from any ability to make trades and are owned by companies who will never make a trade themselves but instead return an API response with a yes/no. Whether that is fed directly into some sort of automated action is largely irrelevant as the ability for an individual trade to cause a measurable impact on the market is negligible until it isn't. So, these systems are built separate from the system they model and learn entirely through observation. tl;dr: weather forecasting models don't have an action to take and also can't influence their system. And yet they learn and grow more accurate.
        • beaconstudios 6y ago
          OK that's a fair criticism. Then perhaps we can divide models into those that influence the system they observe (regulatory systems) versus those that only measure, or whose influence is negligible. Models that aim to influence a system do indeed need to be used to test their efficacy.
          • shkkmo 6y ago
            It's not just about testing their efficacy it's about the theoretical limits of pure observation when doing causal reasoning. We know that we are better served by avoiding causal certainty when using purely observational studies. It seems like the base assumption should be that similar epistemic constraints apply to machine learning.
  • cpleppert 6y ago
    > First, you make a mental model. Then, you test it. Except that isn't how that really works right? A mental model explains part of the reasoning that led to an outcome but never all. After all, the map is not the territory. A mental model is grounded in trivial assumptions. Ultimately, your brain produces inferences in a way that is incredibly hard to couple to a specific logical processes. There has been a lot of research on how experts think and reason and none of it is compatible with having a mental model whatsoever.
    • beaconstudios 6y ago
      A mental model is fundamentally a predictive tool. It doesn't describe reality, it just allows us to make educated guesses about what will happen. I'm a constructivist so I'm under no assumption that we have access to the territory at all except modulated by our subjective perception.
• didibus 6y ago
  > I learned to ride a bike by watching my classmates be taught in preschool I'm confused, you're saying you watched others learn and then managed to get on a bike for the first time and properly ride it like an experienced rider with no practice whatsoever?
  • kubanczyk 6y ago
    I wonder whether the HN post was before or after they practically tested their theoretical riding skills.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]