Hacker News Reader

Comment by minimaltom | Hacker News Reader

I agree he is directionally correct, or at least is a vessel to raise important points and valid criticisms.

But predictions need to be specific and falsifable. If not, its just rag-chewing over a beer (luv that shit, but i aint predicting on taco tuesday). If they arent falsifable, then its not a prediction.

I think a lot of the HN comments generally can be described as one camp which cares about and enforces the rigor of predictions and trying to direct limited ear-time to voices which tend to get predictions right, vs the other camp that puts more weight towards directional accuracy.

View on HN

Why would one ever predict anything at all if it was always falsifiable? Do you mean like eventually falsifiable? Like, I don't know about you, but I tend to go ahead and do any falsifying of something first if possible, before I resort to predicting.

Can you give an example of what a good/proper prediction might be, even in a hypothetical universe, in this schema? Does one "predict" when they play blackjack? Or is there a different concept for that kind of thing?

Falsifiable means able to be correct or incorrect. So if i said that my stepmom was kinda whelp, that wouldnt be falsifable, because like what does that even mean. But if I said my stepmom is going to be on her third marriage by the end of the decade, that is, because in 2030 someone can yell at me either way.

This is a spectrum of course: a prediction that OAI will collapse is probably right as _eventually_ all companies come to an end, but under that interpretation, the prediction is useless. It's more signal / useful / falsifable to say OAI is going to collapse around/at <year> due to <thesis>.

Anyway thats my two cents. Its fine to outline forces and trends, but when you make predictions there are useful (better, falsifiable) and useless.

The first example is not a prediction at all?

Indeed!! It was an example of an utterance that wasnt falsifiable to illustrate what falsifiable means.

OK got it, I guess I am just not quite sharp enough to follow the strong argument here! Thanks for trying either way.

> But predictions need to be specific and falsifable.

This is only possible when the prediction is outside the system.

Inside the system, betting can change outcomes.

You can have a prediction be specific and falsifable while inside the system, its just then riskier (and less useful).

For example, that french dude that bet on a prediction market what the temperature would be, then broke into the weather station at the airport with a hair dryer. The prediction was still specific and falsifable!

I honestly don’t understand why you care so much about the “rigor of predictions”. Short-term predictions are almost always at least somewhat inaccurate, no matter who’s doing the predicting. Directional accuracy strikes me as far more important.

Take a look at the thread below yours, but basically if the prediction has to be wishy-washy or just interpreted as 'direction', theres way more noise and way less signal. Why not just state the underlying trend/forces instead? Why lean into the online culture of predictions and do it badly.

Bad (form) prediction: OAI is gonna be wobbly in a bit Good (form) prediction (could be totally wrong): OAI as we know it today is going to collapse due to running out of money around/at 20xx.

And sure we can be pedantic about detail, but the litmus test is: is the prediction useful if you had a crystal ball and you could know if it was true/false a priori?

Who cares about predictions to this extent? They’re practically always incorrect or flawed in some way, and most people understand and accept that. No need to be so neurotic about it.

That’s the crux of it!! You don’t have to agree but people do care, and I think (ignoring the obvious partisans) that’s the two dominant camps of commenters on this thread.

One pony’s trash is another pony’s treasure, so I guess here one persons pedanticism is another persons hobby.

Of course people (apparently) care, as evidenced by this thread. But should they? I certainly don’t think so.

Its a fair question to ask! and ive landed on the opposite answer lol

Apparently you do, or you wouldn't keep asking?

This is like a grade school-tier insult. The entire article is about predictions, of course I’m talking about them. I just think the obsession with the accuracy of short-term predictions is absurd and pedantic.

> OAI as we know it today is going to collapse due to running out of money around/at 20xx.

Now what happens if that prediction is published in a popular, widely-consumed way?

Pundits and analysts who are widely read, talking about a prediction that OpenAI will run out of money by a given date, will change when OpenAI runs out of money.

This is why directional accuracy is more valuable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com