/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17372737]

is he right that we should all be bayesians?

[Anonymous No.17372806]

NO SHIT

[Anonymous No.17372890]

Lit is to much of brainlet to even understand what Big Yud has to say, it's easy to shit on the guy than understand when you have low IQ.

[Anonymous No.17372899]

fixation on the bayesian theorem is an excellent indicator of a midwit

[Anonymous No.17372907]

his mom obviously encourages him, but do you think his dad's embarrassed?

[Anonymous No.17372908]

>>17372737
>bayesians
QRD for fellow tards?

[Anonymous No.17372923]

>>17372908
if you see some phenomenon, and you have to assume the broader causality of it, you should assume it fits the schema that you've most commonly experienced with that phenomenon. so if you see someone outside, running, in sneakers and sportswear, you should assume they are having a jog, not fleeing the scene of a robbery, because most of the time in your past experience seeing people out running like that, they have been joggers. people like the yud find this to be a startling and revolutionary principle.

[Anonymous No.17372928]

>>17372908
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference
>>17372737
If you REALLY want to understand what this guy is about, read his 122 chapter Harry Potter fanfiction (not joking):
http://www.hpmor.com/

God bless.

[Anonymous No.17372933]

>>17372908
that's literally all it is, which is why midwits are naturally attracted to it like a fly to shit

[Anonymous No.17372943]

>>17372737

[Anonymous No.17372992]

>>17372933
>idea can be expressed in few characters therefore idea unimportant
damn I definitely assign a lot of value to your opinions on what is "midwit" or not.

[Anonymous No.17373024]

>>17372933
yep

>>17372928
damn i remember when this was coming out during undergrad. the absolute lowest people in my cohort of math majors was obsessed with it.
torturous

[Anonymous No.17373119]

Damn I wish I could do maths.
I've learned Algebra I and II several times in high school and college but have never used them, and so I don't remember them and I'm basically back to 4th grade math now

[Anonymous No.17373321]

>>17372737
Yes.
All other opinions are ad hominems and contrarianism.

[Anonymous No.17373361]

>>17372923
What if I follow your example, then I discover that the guy was actually running away from a robbery? If this happens enough times, will this constitute a refutation to Bayesian thinking? After all it will have been the case that Bayesian reasoning had been wrong in most cases.

[Anonymous No.17373390]

>>17373361
With every case of guy running away from robbery you do an update to your belief. One of the most useful things in Bayesian reasoning.

[Anonymous No.17373426]

>>17372908
There are two popular schools of probability, frequentist and bayesian. The frequentist idea is to estimate probabilities based on how often the event has occurred in the past. However there is no mental model to the frequentist school, all there are is the events, their frequencies, and the equations.

Bayesianism in contrast, is distinct and that its core is the notion of belief as expected probability. Basically it is about how to revise your beliefs based on new information. It has more flesh on its bones than the frequentist take, because there is no persistent "state" in the frequentist model, no concept of belief representing the summation of past expectations. It supposes that how often things happen in themselves tells you about how likely they will happen without any concept of belief.

[Anonymous No.17373541]

>>17372737
The only good accelerationist,

[Anonymous No.17373592]

>>17372737
No, he's too fat to be correct.

[Anonymous No.17373596]

>>17372890

[Anonymous No.17373603]

>>17373592
not his fault, he's metabolically disprivileged.

[Anonymous No.17373620]

>>17373603
lel

[Anonymous No.17373635]

>>17372737

[Anonymous No.17373690]

>>17373592
He isn't any more

[Anonymous No.17373703]

>>17372933
That's literally proven mathematics. What the fuck do you have against it?

[Anonymous No.17373704]

>>17372737
We're not made to function like Bayesian computers so it is a moot point. It is obviously a useful concept in many situations though.

[Anonymous No.17373725]

Is that videogamedunkey

[Anonymous No.17373741]

>>17373635
quality.

[Anonymous No.17373746]

>>17373690
You mean he got the lipo?

[Anonymous No.17374651]

>>17373746
I think he gave up and turned to the dreaded diet and exercise

[Anonymous No.17374923]

>>17374651
Did he update his priors about disprivilege?

[Anonymous No.17375427]

>>17373592
Nah he lost weight somehow

[Anonymous No.17376573]

no

[Anonymous No.17376610]

>>17374651
Say it ain’t so

[Anonymous No.17376616]

>>17372737
quite litteraly brainlet tier
bayesianism is just the gambler fallacy used for "good"

[Anonymous No.17376648]

>>17373703
its use as if it was revolutionary religious dogma

[Anonymous No.17376706]

>>17372737
It's a satanspawn, no one should be taking it seriously.

[Anonymous No.17376804]

>>17372923
This is just David Hume’s knowledge of causation coming from habit

[Anonymous No.17376988]

>>17373635

some good shit

[Anonymous No.17377330]

>>17373703
The problem is relating real-life situations with false certainty to the theorem

[Anonymous No.17377641]

>>17372943
>Bayesian
>objective
?

[Anonymous No.17377664]

>>17372923
That doesn't seem like a revolutionary enough idea for one guy to get to have his name attached to it forever

[Anonymous No.17377674]

>>17377330
Example please. Bayesianism as described sounds unobjectionable but how do the Bayesians apply it?

[Anonymous No.17377684]

>>17377641
Yes, if your priors are biased just repeat the test and update, no matter how biased you were to begin with if you update your priors enough times you'll arrive at an objective answer.

[Anonymous No.17377982]

>>17372737
Look at his face and tell me honestly if you want to be similar to this guy in any way.
I long for the days when technopositivism stops yielding these shitty "thinkers" and their bizarre predictions, not only because their thoughts and predictions are useless servile PR for an industry which doesnt need it, but also because they are fugly asexual polyamorous kikes of whom no images should exist.

[Anonymous No.17378079]

>>17377982
I’d prefer to associate with fugly asexual polyamorous kikes (=nice, educated ppl) than with autistic incels that rage out incoherently against the world on taiwanese basket weaving message boards

You hate him because he’s everything you want to be but can’t possibly be due to fucked up upbringing and deeply rooted socialization issues.

You’ll object, naturally, but you’ll realize, deep down, that this is indeed the truth, as you fap over tranny porn like the filthy degenerate peasant that you are.

[Anonymous No.17378117]

>>17378079
Bro, your weirdly specific guess is not even close to my motivation or porn habits. I think, and I know this gets thrown around a lot on this website, that you might be projecting a little bit.

[Anonymous No.17378119]

>>17372923
So... basic human thought process?

[Anonymous No.17378140]

i don't think worshipping a model is a good idea

[Anonymous No.17378160]

>>17378140
Refute it but you can't
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQIB3-EtL1w

[Anonymous No.17378795]

>>17377674
In bayesianism you have a prior probability estimate of a theory and you have two conditionals. When you see some evidence you update your prior based on how well your theory predicts the evidence but also your prior estimate and how well other things than your theory predicts it. People commit the error constantly of not taking the prior and the other conditional into account.

Say some commie on/lit/ wants you to become a marxist because marx predicted third world exploitation and this is really happening in some cases, therefore you should think marxism is true. Well he's not taking the prior probability of marxism independently of observed exploitation nor is he taking the prob of exploitation with marxism being false into account, and in the equation this really determines whether he's offering a good argument for marxism, whether observed evidence should lead us to become become marxists.