[FRIAM] by any means necessary

[Marcus Daniels]

A flattening function of `variance', would prefer inter-subjective consistency.  A flattening function of `sum' would select for best subjective outcome for the most people.  One could probably invent a many-body utility function from the ground up too.  
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 1:51 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] by any means necessary

Well, you're right that inter-subjectivity is not identical to objectivity. But it's not quite right to say that the intersubjective is merely subjective. All that's needed to communicate that difference is the blind men and the elephant story. You don't need the source code for the functions if you can cross-validate them "enough". More technically, it's useful to compare interpretable ML with explainable ML. One may be enough for credibility in some uses but inadequate in others. And one might ask whether iML is really all that interpretable if the interpretability falls away with scale *or* the accuracy falls away without scale.

On 2/15/22 13:44, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> A calculus that invokes subjective interpretations of outcomes is itself subjective.  To make it objective, it would be necessary to draw conclusions from the outcomes and not from black-box subjective functions.  The source code for the functions needs to be shared.

-- 
glen
When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/