JoshCole

41 ms·

241.
by JoshCole 4y ago
On further reflection, you're right, I'm conflating it. My correction is still valid though. You're not handling step ten properly. You didn't work over the information sets, didn't solve the actual graph that is th
242.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> The puzzle is to find the flaw in the very compelling line of reasoning above. This includes determining exactly why and under what conditions that step is not correct, in order to be sure not to make this mistake in a more complicated
243.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Disregard the above; you basically said the same thing I did, but used a phrasing that made it hard for me to realize you had done so.
244.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Am I really the one who is getting things conflated? Go back to the problem and look at step ten. The problem allows infinite swapping. You are doing an EV calculation, but your analysis is fundamentally flawed. Assign the policy of always
245.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Okay. lets start with the easy analysis; the version of the game that terminate after only one switch. I[null] = {0.5: A, 0.5: 2A} We get the expected change in EV for switching like this: ( # The expected gain of switching if
246.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Yep! You're in both subgames at once. You're playing both the A state and the 2A state at the same time, because the information set I you are in contains both of them. This is the key difference between perfect information and im
247.
by JoshCole 4y ago
I think you're confusing yourself. Watch something like Naom Brown's NIPS 2017 lecture on subgame solving in imperfect information games and you'll realize you should be very wary of someone who is trying to play around with
248.
by JoshCole 4y ago
You don't know what A is even if he tells you the first envelope is 60. A and 2A exist together counterfactually, if you have A, you have 2A, if you have 2A, you have A. This is a fundamental property of imperfect information games. Yo
249.
by JoshCole 4y ago
A can't collapse to sixty. It could still be 30, 60 or 120. The expected value calculation includes the value of A as defined in two different worlds: the world in which A/2 (30) and the world in which 2A (120). But these two worl
250.
by JoshCole 4y ago
No, he articulated the problem correctly. He's just wrong that the math isn't with him. Game theory solves imperfect information games using information sets. The math is with him. In imperfect information games you are in an info
251.
by JoshCole 4y ago
It is trivial! It is trivial! The game defines a graph and your path through that graph is going to lead to an outcome. You have a strategy, a choice of how to move through the graph. However, you have no information about where you are in
252.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Honestly, the more I've thought about this problem the more that statement bothers me. It is just such a nonsense goal. The reason the calculations are wrong are fundamentally related to why correcting the calculations leads to the cor
253.
by JoshCole 4y ago
On reflection, it bites you on this particular problem too, because when you take the limit of P(Switch=1) the recursive switch case with a discount factor under the formalism mentioned above is zero. So for every strategy selection except
254.
by JoshCole 4y ago
The person you are responding to is right actually. I drew in an ASCII art a diagram of the various game trees so it will be easier for you to see this: On Wikipedia they created two trees one with 2A. -> Keep -> 2A
255.
by JoshCole 4y ago
So why is this happening? Some people are pointing at the error I mentioned above, but I think the problem is actually much deeper than that. Identifying this error is basically identifying the superficial reason for why they went wrong. It
256.
by JoshCole 4y ago
The game looks like this in tree form: -> Keep -> 2A 2A -> Switch -> A 0.5 -> A -> Keep -> A -> Switch -> 2A Switch and keep both have an expectatio
257.
by JoshCole 4y ago
I completely understand your point; a reasonable video author would have stuck to the things that matter. This person isn't reasonable. As the GP put it he "has an agenda" but as the GP didn't warn you he has no issue wi
258.
by JoshCole 4y ago
It wasn't me who wrote the long rebuttal. I watched this video months back and noticed the same thing I'm sure you did. I ended up finding this rebuttal to it way back then and because of how often a certain segment of the populat
259.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Just to give a sense of scale, because it is crazy. Your estimate? It is 0.000621118012422 of his one year estimate. You arrived at a figure more than three orders of magnitude lower than his figure. So I hope you'll understand why I h
260.
by JoshCole 4y ago
If anyone wants to climb out of the rabbit hole rather than into it, someone wrote a multi-part essay debunking this video. There are /a lot/ of mischaracterizations, outright lies, and deception. It has three parts, because there
261.
by JoshCole 4y ago
He doesn't just include those calculations in. He overcounts them to a pretty large degree. He also photoshops screengrabs of articles and lies about launch prices and lies about the number of launches and lies about the speed of Space
262.
by JoshCole 4y ago
It is so much worse than that. The video doesn't use SpaceX cost. It uses their cost to others. It categorically rules out using their new rocket, even though their stated plans call for them to use it. It rules out ride sharing, even
263.
by JoshCole 4y ago
If anyone is about to watch this video, I want to warn you before you do that saying this guy "has an agenda" is like saying that a flat earther "has an agenda" in that they will absolutely be giving you "facts&quot
264.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> it's selfish to keep beautiful discoveries a secret. I found a beautiful thing recently and planned to do a write-up on it eventually, but I know I might get distracted. So I'll share the beauty here since I don't want t
265.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Immutable data comes to mind as something relatively simple. There is a world of complexity for working with it in a fault-tolerant and efficient way, but from a structural perspective an immutable bit of data is one thing rather than many
266.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Luck versus skill as a concept is the idea that you can discriminate between agents ability to win. You can state that one agent is better than another agent at a game with greater confidence bounds on the basis of a quantification of their
267.
by JoshCole 4y ago
If they were Tesla only problems, why did other companies feel the need to advance the state of the art in their radar hardware? They did so because poor radar equipment wasn't a Tesla only problem, but was a problem that many identifi
268.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> These are the same things that can cause a traffic accident for a human with human eyes, so there's really no logical reason to assume that you can create a more performing and safer computer driver by emulating human vision only.
269.
by JoshCole 4y ago
False impression and common. We don't need to guess here. There was an engineer talk at the Computer Vision and Pattern Matching conference in 2021 in the Workshop on Autonomous Driving by Andrej Karpathy senior director of AI at Tesla
270.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Which of my claims do you disagree with? - That the vehicle planned a route that it shouldn't, but corrected that route plan? - That the vehicle entered an area where it shouldn't enter? - That Tesla doesn't use radar? - That

More ›