4 ms·

Off-topic, but I don't understand your first paragraph / footnote. Are you saying I'm… middle-management? (I'd assume you were calling me "clueless" – an accura

Off-topic, but I don't understand your first paragraph / footnote. Are you saying I'm… middle-management? (I'd assume you were calling me "clueless" – an accurate epithet –, if not for the reference to Athena.) Is there any significance to the Hebrew (?) translation of a US idiom derived from Catholicism? I don't have anything further to contribute to this discussion, so if not for that bemusing remark of yours, I wouldn't have engaged. If I'm being honest, I don't understand the middle two paragraphs, either. (Why "bad faith" and "good faith"? Why do you say it can be done in principle, while leaving "in reality" an open question? and how does what's essentially a theory defer to anyone's curiosity? Surely I'm missing context.)

gradschoolfail 2y ago
Pls pardon the attempt at Hebrew! I just thought that little bit of interfaith/international interjection might not detract from getting your attention. Slyly, it was a signal to my first responder (who is unusually tolerant of linguistic posing) that I identify with “whisky priests”* (Mexican, but invented by Graham Greene — while avoiding the US?) and that this was a metaphorical swig of whisky before i jump into risky territory :) The bad vs good faith is a theoretical curiosity of mine, which i can unpack later if either of you are so interested. This theory, as well as the inaccurate epithets, can be said to originate from my reading of 2 comments by you! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41205833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41205833 So clearly, you’re not middle management, even if you claim you are clueless, but your uh, soul, was “salvated” — by virtue of working on something the experts dismissed. [If we take seriously your claim that you weren’t being clever, then that’s good faith in my book. I will say no further about my theory except that it could be a “dial” for scientists to consider.] If nothing else, i would like (quixotically?) to condense your chain of thoughts in that situation into something worth propagating, into science-curious folks’ realities. As to the curiosity i was deferring to.. (it could also be related to the revolutionary approach of yours, if i’m being very presumptuous — and wrong???) 082349872349872 expressed his inspirational feelings on the matter here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40600845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40600845. Mariatta, child of beauty) [PDF] A representation of antimatroids by Horn rules and its application to educational systems http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.05465 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.05465 Specifically, i wonder if anybody has tried to apply these supposedly efficient algorithms, which model states of teacher+learner, in “real life”. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_priest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_priest
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  > Science is the study of what is _not_ true, of falsification: how _not_ to cure a patient, how _not_ to go to the moon. So in this model, scientists are the avalanche dogs who report "nope, no people over there" and thereby help narrow down the rescuers' efforts?
  - gradschoolfail 2y ago
    Just a clarification here.. there i assumed the readingmode (like you?) in which scientists are to be identified with the badfaith-clueless So, if i understood ww4 correctly, it is more like, dog reports correctly that theres no person, but the rescuers are actually looking for a horse. Whereas the lazy (=theoretical) engineerdonkey might say, i detected scent of a horse but didnt actually look, was thinking about that windmill, sorry!
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  > Specifically, i wonder if anybody has tried to apply these supposedly efficient algorithms, which model states of teacher+learner, in “real life”. Here is a real life (albeit informal) example: when I was still in the Old Country, a professional trainer told me the following (translated here to the notation of [Yoshikawa et al 2018]) about his process of "tuning up" horses that someone else (usually the client themself) has messed up: 1. Be an expert: this means (at least implicitly) knowing R* 2. Ask the horse to do a task involving Q. If the horse does it perfectly, the owner needs work. (if you like dealing with humans and also know R'*, start over by teaching the owner at step 1 and Q'; if you don't like dealing with humans or don't know R'*, pass the buck to a colleague who does both) 3. At this point determine if the horse either (a) doesn't realise you wanted Q, (b) can't do Q because they're insufficiently fit, (c) can't do Q because they don't know how, or (d) could have done Q but doesn't want to. In the cases of (a) or (d), the remedy is (for the purposes of this example) straightforward. In the cases of (b) or (c) it's more complex, leading to: 4. Walk the antimatroid A(R*) to determine which subsets Q_p the horse can physically do and Q_m the horse knows how to do; in the generic case this will give you a task Q_1 which can be trained having some subset of Q_p ⋃ Q_m as prereqs with a single novel q (unit inference?) to work on. 5. Until the owner says "good enough" (common) or can't ask for Q_n (common, see step 2) or you reach Q (rare), train the other steps of a minimal path Q_2...Q [Exercise: does such a path exist? (easy)]

gradschoolfail 2y ago

Pls pardon the attempt at Hebrew! I just thought that little bit of interfaith/international interjection might not detract from getting your attention. Slyly, it was a signal to my first responder (who is unusually tolerant of linguistic posing) that I identify with “whisky priests”* (Mexican, but invented by Graham Greene — while avoiding the US?) and that this was a metaphorical swig of whisky before i jump into risky territory :) The bad vs good faith is a theoretical curiosity of mine, which i can unpack later if either of you are so interested. This theory, as well as the inaccurate epithets, can be said to originate from my reading of 2 comments by you! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41205833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41205833 So clearly, you’re not middle management, even if you claim you are clueless, but your uh, soul, was “salvated” — by virtue of working on something the experts dismissed. [If we take seriously your claim that you weren’t being clever, then that’s good faith in my book. I will say no further about my theory except that it could be a “dial” for scientists to consider.] If nothing else, i would like (quixotically?) to condense your chain of thoughts in that situation into something worth propagating, into science-curious folks’ realities. As to the curiosity i was deferring to.. (it could also be related to the revolutionary approach of yours, if i’m being very presumptuous — and wrong???) 082349872349872 expressed his inspirational feelings on the matter here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40600845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40600845. Mariatta, child of beauty) [PDF] A representation of antimatroids by Horn rules and its application to educational systems http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.05465 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.05465 Specifically, i wonder if anybody has tried to apply these supposedly efficient algorithms, which model states of teacher+learner, in “real life”. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_priest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_priest

082349872349872 2y ago
> Science is the study of what is _not_ true, of falsification: how _not_ to cure a patient, how _not_ to go to the moon. So in this model, scientists are the avalanche dogs who report "nope, no people over there" and thereby help narrow down the rescuers' efforts?
- gradschoolfail 2y ago
  Just a clarification here.. there i assumed the readingmode (like you?) in which scientists are to be identified with the badfaith-clueless So, if i understood ww4 correctly, it is more like, dog reports correctly that theres no person, but the rescuers are actually looking for a horse. Whereas the lazy (=theoretical) engineerdonkey might say, i detected scent of a horse but didnt actually look, was thinking about that windmill, sorry!
082349872349872 2y ago
> Specifically, i wonder if anybody has tried to apply these supposedly efficient algorithms, which model states of teacher+learner, in “real life”. Here is a real life (albeit informal) example: when I was still in the Old Country, a professional trainer told me the following (translated here to the notation of [Yoshikawa et al 2018]) about his process of "tuning up" horses that someone else (usually the client themself) has messed up: 1. Be an expert: this means (at least implicitly) knowing R* 2. Ask the horse to do a task involving Q. If the horse does it perfectly, the owner needs work. (if you like dealing with humans and also know R'*, start over by teaching the owner at step 1 and Q'; if you don't like dealing with humans or don't know R'*, pass the buck to a colleague who does both) 3. At this point determine if the horse either (a) doesn't realise you wanted Q, (b) can't do Q because they're insufficiently fit, (c) can't do Q because they don't know how, or (d) could have done Q but doesn't want to. In the cases of (a) or (d), the remedy is (for the purposes of this example) straightforward. In the cases of (b) or (c) it's more complex, leading to: 4. Walk the antimatroid A(R*) to determine which subsets Q_p the horse can physically do and Q_m the horse knows how to do; in the generic case this will give you a task Q_1 which can be trained having some subset of Q_p ⋃ Q_m as prereqs with a single novel q (unit inference?) to work on. 5. Until the owner says "good enough" (common) or can't ask for Q_n (common, see step 2) or you reach Q (rare), train the other steps of a minimal path Q_2...Q [Exercise: does such a path exist? (easy)]