Thinking out loud, it seems to me that for most things Bayesian logic
supercedes Pearls causality. The probability of something given a prior,
versus the probability without the prior is, in some sense, the degree to
which the prior "causes" the result. The beauty is that you can usefully
reason
You mention Bayesian statistics as a thing like Pearls causality maths
that's too complex.for most people and so hasn't caught on. I'd argue the
exact opposite. Bayesian statistics ARE complicated but the first time I
saw them my reaction was Oh My God this is going to change everything about
how
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:38 PM Landon Hurley wrote:
> Sorry to delurk with a massive rant but I love this field and Pearl's
> work, and spent the last 18 months being denied my doctorate because I use
> to much maths for a Psych department.
>
> >Anyone else have opinions on why his ideas
Bharat,
I had the same double take but upon pondering I assumed it meant clinical
decision making group (the MIT enclave).
Landon
On 22 August 2018 22:21:49 GMT-04:00, Bharat Shetty
wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 4:54 AM wrote:
>
>> First, stepping back, https://youtu.be/ajGX7odA87k
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 4:54 AM wrote:
> First, stepping back, https://youtu.be/ajGX7odA87k provides some examples
> of my ML and AI involve too much magical thinking. That jobs with some of
> the points in the Quanta essay. I'm especially sensitive to this because of
> days of AI including a
First, stepping back, https://youtu.be/ajGX7odA87k provides some examples of my
ML and AI involve too much magical thinking. That jobs with some of the points
in the Quanta essay. I'm especially sensitive to this because of days of AI
including a stint in the MIT clinical decision making group
Sorry to delurk with a massive rant but I love this field and Pearl's work, and
spent the last 18 months being denied my doctorate because I use to much maths
for a Psych department.
>Anyone else have opinions on why his ideas haven't caught on more
>generally?
There are two connected
Charles Haynes wrote on 8/22/18 2:00 AM August 22, 2018:
Pearl has been spruiking his causality formalisms for years, but they don't
seem to have caught on despite widespread dissemiy of the ideas. I've read
them and my reaction was "hm, interesting" rather than "oh! I see how this
could be
Pearl has been spruiking his causality formalisms for years, but they don't
seem to have caught on despite widespread dissemiy of the ideas. I've read
them and my reaction was "hm, interesting" rather than "oh! I see how this
could be useful"
Anyone else have opinions on why his ideas haven't
