JoshCole

33 ms·

211.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Weird. I've had a defect rate of less than 1% percent with a sample size of enough items to reduce the margin of error on that statistic to something rather negligible. To get your configuration you need to have two items that aren&#x2
212.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> using that argument we could dismiss any of the other technologies ignoring the fact that more (and different) data typically allows you to make better decisions. Bellman gave us the bellman equations, but also gave us the term curse o
213.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Thanks for the response. I agree that LiDAR can make that determination. I think he was confused about what it was possible to learn from the LiDAR sensors rather than what LiDAR provides. His ability to distinguish between radar in former
214.
by JoshCole 4y ago
cycomanic is claiming that leobg is ignorant. They do this despite leobg displaying accurate historical knowledge and stating the way that the sensor works in a way which does not fundamentally disagree with the correction that cycomanic im
215.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Some better examples of his point are how do you determine the color of lights (stoplights, blinkers, brake lights, cop car lights, and so on) so as to make legally correct driving decisions with LIDAR? Some other things LIDAR won't gi
216.
by JoshCole 4y ago
You're forgiven, so don't worry about it, but you didn't upset me. I was just providing more evidence about my reasoning that the use of counterexample via substitution really does go as far back as ancient Greece, why that s
217.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> We can agree that "the entire structure is wrong" because the "entire structure" is giving a wrong formula for the EV and saying "this is the formula for the EV." We aren't in agreement about this. I
218.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Mike, even when you get the correct result using the right rules the expected value of an envelope is not the expected value of a policy. I'm not agreeing with you that the problem is the expected value calculation. I'm telling yo
219.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> The notable difference being this is not ancient Greece and the two commenters above are not Socrates and a Sophist opponet, say. Who cares if they aren't people from ancient Greece? I said it was a tradition rooted in logic, not
220.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> Further, you must make a hypothesis, then run experiments - things an AI cannot do. Uh, you do realize that AI and classifiers are two different things right? Like, there are literally, right now - like, already - AI which make a hypot
221.
by JoshCole 4y ago
AI includes supervised learning, but supervised learning is a very narrow part of the field of AI. In some problems, humans don't supply the data. For example, in reinforcement learning, rewards are provided by the environment, but the
222.
by JoshCole 4y ago
They are trying to create a distinction, not between the explainability of machine learning approaches, but between human approaches and machine learning approaches. Whatever paper you think I should be using for my definition, just go to t
223.
by JoshCole 4y ago
His point is built atop a tradition going back at least as far as ancient Greece to the formal discovery of what we call logic. In these times it was discovered that you could separate the contents of an argument from the argument itself an
224.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> What I mean by that, is that AI is often non-explainable, can be non-deterministic and only as good as it’s training data. By your logic, humans can't discover things, but AI can. You think you made the opposite claim - you didn&#
225.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Another counterpoint is that the same technology applied to chess rediscovered human opening theory - then extended it in some openings. In chess, you don't have to write a research paper to make a notable contribution. If people find
226.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> But you're telling me that the concept of subgame applies in both directions (not only imperfect information by my opponent's perspective, but also imperfect information in my perspective). So when I say "my opponent&#x2
227.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Okay. Your opponents strategy in poker is fixed; they will always play the nash equilibrium strategy, they will never play another strategy. Their strategy is fixed. They will never change it from this setting. You've claimed that subg
228.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> without any thought to other subgames I guarantee you that your solution is going to have to incorporate a set somewhere that includes both subgames. You might forget it does, because you simplify to a scalar, but it is going to be the
229.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> I thought that this corresponds perfectly to my poker example. If it doesn't, and it means something completely different, ok, sure. I'm not a mathematician. I can't even read the notation that's used in subsequent
230.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> That's why you can solve a single subgame in Two Envelopes game independently of other subgames, even though it's an imperfect-information game. Obviously the EV of envelope 1 is the contents of envelope 1. If you know the pr
231.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> Although Brown says "imperfect-information games" here, he actually means a specific type of imperfect-information games: the type where the opponent's strategy is not fixed. We're talking about games where your opp
232.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> the explanation you provided about convergence, policy functions, etc. went over my head, sorry. I was agreeing with you when I talked about convergence. You said that adding a cost would solve the problem and I agree that it does. I
233.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> I'm not a mathematician, so I don't understand expressions like "counterfactual part of subgames emerging" or "there is an identity implied by being under imperfect information". I appreciate you writing b
234.
by JoshCole 4y ago
This would be true if cultures didn't change, but they do. Switch your argument to something else, say splashing water on fires using tools. By your logic the technology can't ever be disentangled with the purpose of extortion, a
235.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> I feel like this is a detour that we can avoid by adding a small cost to switching. I don't think its a detour we actually want to avoid; the implications are really fascinating and help us to understand how to solve games more ge
236.
by JoshCole 4y ago
I don't think you're wrong exactly, but I just want to try and give you a different way of framing your disagreement. A man walks to a house with a ladder. He explains that ladders are climbing devices. He tries to set it up again
237.
by JoshCole 4y ago
I think this, because I disagree with most people here about what the actual paradox is. I think the paradox is that the algorithm equates the expected value of the contents of an envelope with the expected value of a policy choice for a pl
238.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> It would be boring and unsatisfying to accept a simple answer that explains how to get the "correct answer" without explaining what made it a paradox in the first place Well, this is just a place where they do the math wrong.
239.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Basically when the wiki says 2A because less than and A/2 because greater than things are okay, but we're in dangerous territory. If we ever introduce uncertainty the imperfect information scenario we are in is going to force us t
240.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> This game tree only makes sense if you change the definition of A. Switching away from using A to avoid ambiguity. > This is a fuzzy explanation that gives a feeling "something about this explains the issue", but it's

More ›