3 ms·

> The law only applies for certain types of processes Did you even read the post? It’s an estimate in the context where you have zero information on which to b

> The law only applies for certain types of processes Did you even read the post? It’s an estimate in the context where you have zero information on which to base an accurate estimate. The author’s point is that if you’re making a different estimate you need to actually say what information is informing that. Human lifespan is obviously not a case where we have zero information, so what is your point in bringing that up?

t43562 5mo ago
The lifespan argument shows how important it is to have more than zero information.
- btilly 5mo ago
  Yes, it is valuable to have more than zero information. But often we don't have the information that we wish. Even more often, the information that we have leads us to a story, that severely misleads us. Reminding ourselves of the zero information version of the story, can be an antidote to being mislead that way. Therefore it is valuable to know how to make the most out of zero information. And if we have information, to think about exactly why it leads to a different conclusion.
  - t43562 5mo ago
    The argument is that it's not very valuable because it can be incredibly wrong and the priority is to get more information. "And we have information to think" - then we don't have zero information right?
tsimionescu 5mo ago
My point is that some processes you encounter will tend to show the Lindy effect, and some won't. If you want to claim that the Lindy effect should be the default assumption, it is up to you to show that it's more likely than not that a random process you encounter shows the Lindy effect. This is not at all an obvious fact, and is quite likely not even true. So, if most processes are in fact like human lifespans, which do not show a Lindy effect, then it is completely wrong to assume that a random process that you encounter will have this property.

t43562 5mo ago

The lifespan argument shows how important it is to have more than zero information.

btilly 5mo ago
Yes, it is valuable to have more than zero information. But often we don't have the information that we wish. Even more often, the information that we have leads us to a story, that severely misleads us. Reminding ourselves of the zero information version of the story, can be an antidote to being mislead that way. Therefore it is valuable to know how to make the most out of zero information. And if we have information, to think about exactly why it leads to a different conclusion.
- t43562 5mo ago
  The argument is that it's not very valuable because it can be incredibly wrong and the priority is to get more information. "And we have information to think" - then we don't have zero information right?

tsimionescu 5mo ago

My point is that some processes you encounter will tend to show the Lindy effect, and some won't. If you want to claim that the Lindy effect should be the default assumption, it is up to you to show that it's more likely than not that a random process you encounter shows the Lindy effect. This is not at all an obvious fact, and is quite likely not even true. So, if most processes are in fact like human lifespans, which do not show a Lindy effect, then it is completely wrong to assume that a random process that you encounter will have this property.