Intuition is a heuristic that lets you form decisions fast without a lot of effort. But I wouldn’t say having a wrong intuition is that uncommon that I would write a book every time I had a wrong intuition. I have intuitions all the time about stuff and when I check, it turns out I was wrong. That’s also why I wouldn’t make important decisions based purely on intuition. Intuitions form because sometimes, you need quick decisions and it’s better to do something wrong some of the time than take longer to make a better decision.
When it works we call it intuition. When it doesn't we call it superstition. There are all sorts of availability biases at work here; none of which really support the use of intuition as a valuable, predictive resource. After all, if your intuition fails to predict something, there must be some lurking variable somewhere that you failed to account for. Not that the intuition is wrong /s.
The thing is, depth discussions have been going on for decades and these swimmers literally live in the pool. When people spend literally 40+ hours a week in water I trust them well before I trust scientists because it takes scientists so much longer to catch up and measure what the practitioners are observing.
Like this reminds me of Beckham/Ronaldo doing free kicks. They had a deep understanding of controlling the ball well beyond what scientists knew how to measure and explain what they're doing.
I couldn't make it to the end of the "Badness 0 Knuth's version" paper because of the keming. Is it on purpose? I can't tell, it was too distracting to keep reading. Ironic.
In UX, the right way to think about your users is not that they are dumb, but that they are very smart but very busy, and don't have time for your app's bullshit. It puts you in the right frame of mind when designing interfaces. It's not about dealing with dunces, but about being efficient with peoples time and attention.
> any foreigner who lent Evergrande money thinking this wasn't a huge risk is a moron.
Or they are very smart while investing your money. Check your country's pension fund, see who manages it and what they invest in. Or better yet, don't.
It's just that it wouldn't work because any group defecting and having more children would inherit the earth and you'd be back to square one, only now not even in control.
It's the same mistake as every other decel "solution".
It's so obvious, and so unbelievable that proponents don't think of it that one has to wonder, who pushes this? Qui bono?
> The market, made up of a lot of people, seems to think the richest man in the world is pretty valuable.
By the same logic, our biology must think cancer is pretty valuable because of how many resources it dedicates to feeding cancerous cells. Wealth and value are not correlated.
When you really analyze at how many/most of the richest people in the world got so rich, they tended to extract (i.e. more parasitic) much of the value rather than create (i.e. more symbiotic) it. They have also often done so at the direct expense of others simply so they could have more... when they already had much more than they could ever use. Our economic system allows for this, but to praise these folks for much of what they did leaves a bad taste.
How is the market saying that the richest man is pretty valuable? Because the richest man owns a significant number of shares in a company the market deems as valuable?
This is laughable... Neural networks also have basically unknowable abstractions encoded in their weights. There was some work not long ago which taught an ANN to do modular arithmetic, and found that it was doing Fourier transforms with the learned weights....
When a human has done the same thing many times they tend to try to generalize and take shortcuts. And make tools. Perhaps I missed something but I haven't seen a neural net do that.
Is that very different than the distillation and amplification process that happens during training? Where the neural net learns to predict in one step what initially required several steps of iterated execution.
IMHO, yes. It's not an (internal) invention occurring as a result of insight into the process - it's an (external) human training one model on the output of another model.
