This is a better example of "conjunction fallacy" than the "Linda" example (again, I don't think the latter is a fallacy), but still, there are issues in the mainstream explanation:
(1) This example can be explained by "availability", which should not be taken as a heuristic (that people choose to use), but a restriction (that people have to follow). (2) I bet the result will be very different if the two problems are presented together, rather than independently, since that will reduce (though not completely) the difference in available evidence. Pei On 2/9/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some of them, but not others. For an example of the more difficult case: ** Two independent sets of professional analysts at the Second International Congress on Forecasting were asked to rate, respectively, the probability of "A complete suspension of diplomatic relations between the USA and the Soviet Union, sometime in 1983" or "A Russian invasion of Poland, and a complete suspension of diplomatic relations between the USA and the Soviet Union, sometime in 1983". The second set of analysts responded with significantly higher probabilities. ** This is a type of conjunction fallacy where, arguably, an AI can beat a human in this specific case, but only by expending more computing power to search through many possible pathways from previous beliefs to the conclusion. In which case, given a more complex scenario, one that defeated the AI's search capabilities, the AI would fail in a way essentially analogous to the human who conducts almost no search. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
