Perhaps by “work” they meant “do better than letting people choose solely based on reading a short essay and seeing a picture,” although that sounds difficult to make precise. Maybe just “do better than random.” We might have to wait until they publish.
Again, it’s the “even in principle” I was objecting to. Picking people at random can in principle do better than letting people choose solely based on reading a short essay and seeing a picture. And uniformly random algorithm A can in principle do better than uniformly random algorithm B.
Saying something isn’t possible “even in principle” specifically means that it cannot happen in any logically possible world—that’s the entire difference between saying “even in principle” and leaving it out. It can’t even accidentally win.
That’s a rather strong claim. Matching people up completely at random can work in principle.
Perhaps by “work” they meant “do better than letting people choose solely based on reading a short essay and seeing a picture,” although that sounds difficult to make precise. Maybe just “do better than random.” We might have to wait until they publish.
Again, it’s the “even in principle” I was objecting to. Picking people at random can in principle do better than letting people choose solely based on reading a short essay and seeing a picture. And uniformly random algorithm A can in principle do better than uniformly random algorithm B.
Saying something isn’t possible “even in principle” specifically means that it cannot happen in any logically possible world—that’s the entire difference between saying “even in principle” and leaving it out. It can’t even accidentally win.