11–20 of 541 posts
If you make a confusion matrix its precision and recall is 0. If it almost always worked then its precision and recall would be close to 1.
Generally agree with the article, though the reverse is obviously, "Heuristic which almost never works", and all the stories are about the 1 out 100000 times the weirdo was right and everyone lauded them as a genius but really they just got lucky the once.
But other times, they make perfect sense and save a lot of time and effort.
This post reads like a series of straw men created to show that heuristics are dangerous. I’m not sure who is going to argue that heuristics are appropriate in those situations.
>The only problem is: he now provides literally no value. He’s excluded by fiat the possibility of ever being useful in any way. He could be losslessly replaced by a rock with the words “THERE ARE NO ROBBERS” on it except for the value of having a security guard visible so that 99% of the robbers who might conceivably want to rob a Pillow Mart decide to go rob Quilting Heaven down the road instead.
Instead of a rock you just need an inflatable security guard. What's frightening about all this is that this article has gotten 15 upvotes despite 100% of the comments so far being about what a pointless article this is.
Fun and clever article, but for it all to land on that was jarring and disappointing. Preaching to the choir I guess.
I'm confused. These heuristics don't almost always work. The security guard has a 0% chance of investigating. How is 0% almost always? If you make a confusion matrix its precision and recall is 0. If it almost always worked then its precision and recall would be close to 1.
> Whenever someone pooh-poohs rationality as unnecessary, or makes fun of rationalists Fun and clever article, but for it all to land on that was jarring and disappointing. Preaching to the choir I guess.
I'm confused. These heuristics don't almost always work. The security guard has a 0% chance of investigating. How is 0% almost always? If you make a confusion matrix its precision and recall is 0. If it almost always worked then its precision and recall would be close to 1.
You're only counting the positives. When positives are rare, just guessing the result will be negative is usually a really good starting place.
No, you are getting misleading results because you have an imbalanced dataset.
I'm confused. These heuristics don't almost always work. The security guard has a 0% chance of investigating. How is 0% almost always? If you make a confusion matrix its precision and recall is 0. If it almost always worked then its precision and recall would be close to 1.
You're only counting the positives. When positives are rare, just guessing the result will be negative is usually a really good starting place.