I might have been unclear, but I didn’t mean to conflate them. The post is meant to be just about impressiveness. I’ve stated in the end that impressiveness is boldness ⋅ accuracy (which I probably should have called calibration). It’s possible to have perfect accuracy and zero boldness by making predictions about random number generators.
I disagree that 50% predictions can’t tell you anything about calibration. Suppose I give you 200 statements with baseline probabilities, and you have to turn them into predictions by assigning them your own probabilities while following the rule. Once everything can be evaluated, the results on your 50% group will tell me something about how well calibrated you are.
(Edit: I’ve changed the post to say impressiveness = calibration ⋅ boldness)
The title and first sentence are about calibration. You never hear very smart people saying that 50% predictions are meaningless in the context of accuracy.
There’s nothing magical about 50%. The closer the predictions are to 50%, the harder it is to judge calibration.
So you probably won’t convince me that these people know what the claim is, but you haven’t even attempted to convince me that you know what the claim is. Do you see that I asked multiple questions?
Do you see how giving very specific answers to this question would be the same as stating people’s names?
Suffice it to say that I understand the difference between impressiveness and calibration, and it didn’t seem like they did before our conversation, even though they are smart.
I might have been unclear, but I didn’t mean to conflate them. The post is meant to be just about impressiveness. I’ve stated in the end that impressiveness is boldness ⋅ accuracy (which I probably should have called calibration). It’s possible to have perfect accuracy and zero boldness by making predictions about random number generators.
I disagree that 50% predictions can’t tell you anything about calibration. Suppose I give you 200 statements with baseline probabilities, and you have to turn them into predictions by assigning them your own probabilities while following the rule. Once everything can be evaluated, the results on your 50% group will tell me something about how well calibrated you are.
(Edit: I’ve changed the post to say impressiveness = calibration ⋅ boldness)
The title and first sentence are about calibration. You never hear very smart people saying that 50% predictions are meaningless in the context of accuracy.
There’s nothing magical about 50%. The closer the predictions are to 50%, the harder it is to judge calibration.
I have heard this from very smart people.
Could you give an example?
Could you give an example where the claim is that 50% predictions are less meaningful than 10% predictions?
How do you know that it is about accuracy?
I don’t really want to point to specific people. I can think of a couple of conversations with smart EAs or Rationalists where this claim was made.
So you probably won’t convince me that these people know what the claim is, but you haven’t even attempted to convince me that you know what the claim is. Do you see that I asked multiple questions?
Do you see how giving very specific answers to this question would be the same as stating people’s names?
Suffice it to say that I understand the difference between impressiveness and calibration, and it didn’t seem like they did before our conversation, even though they are smart.
Well, that’s something, but I don’t see how it’s relevant to this thread.
I mean, these things? A very similar claim to “10% are less meaningful than 50%” which was due to conflating impressiveness and calibration.
It may be that we’re just talking past each other?
Yes, exactly: this post conflates accuracy and calibration. Thus it is a poor antidote to people who make that mistake.
I do think we’re talking past each other now as I don’t know how this relates to our previous discussion.
At any rate I don’t think the discussion is that high value to the rest of the post so I think I’ll just leave it here.