The original post wasn’t talking about “correctness”; it was talking about calibration, which is a very specific term with a very specific meaning. Machines one and two are both well-calibrated, but there is nothing requiring that two well-calibrated distributions must perform equally well against each other in a series of bets.
Indeed, this is the very point of the original post, so your comment attempting to contradict it did not, in fact, do so.
Being right isn’t enough. Confidence is very important.
It’s not talking about calibration—both are asserted to be equally well-calibrated. It’s talking about a difference it labels “confidence”, and I assert “correctness” or “usefulness” would be better words.
The original post wasn’t talking about “correctness”; it was talking about calibration, which is a very specific term with a very specific meaning. Machines one and two are both well-calibrated, but there is nothing requiring that two well-calibrated distributions must perform equally well against each other in a series of bets.
Indeed, this is the very point of the original post, so your comment attempting to contradict it did not, in fact, do so.
The post is titled:
It’s not talking about calibration—both are asserted to be equally well-calibrated. It’s talking about a difference it labels “confidence”, and I assert “correctness” or “usefulness” would be better words.