How technical is the use of the word ‘distributed’ here?
While arranging my evening, I may perform some Bayesian updates. Maybe I learn that the movie is not available on Netflix, so I ask a friend if they have a copy, then check Amazon when they don’t. This process is reasonably well-characterized as me having a centralized model of the places I might find the movie, and then Bayes-updating that model each time I learn another place where I can/can’t find it.
It seems more like going through a list of places and checking off ‘not there’ than Bayesian updating. Sure, that’s a special case,
My friends and I, as a system, are not well-modeled as Bayesian updates to a single central knowledge-state; otherwise we wouldn’t check Netflix twice.
but it seems like ‘centrality’ is less likely to be the thing here than something else. Coordination is mentioned, but it seems more like you both check Netflix because you’re not asking ‘what if _ checks Netflix’. In other words, maybe you’re not acting in a ‘Bayesian manner’. Rather than evaluate the probability, you take the action. I would also guess you didn’t say Netflix because ‘the probability points that way’.
If you watch Netflix a lot (or have used it recently) then it might come to mind quickly. If your friend watches something else a lot, maybe they check there first.
There’s not much of a benefit of more elaborate protocols here (beyond texting your friend it’s not on netflix), if there’s not a lot of services to search. (Otherwise you could come up with a list together (or independently) and handle your parts (or pick some off the list at random, figuring that if both of you do that, you’re more likely to find it, even if you don’t coordinate more).) So I won’t go into a lot more detail here, other than mentioning:
There are other considerations at play here than probability: cost. You have Netflix so you check there.
How technical is the use of the word ‘distributed’ here?
It seems more like going through a list of places and checking off ‘not there’ than Bayesian updating. Sure, that’s a special case,
but it seems like ‘centrality’ is less likely to be the thing here than something else. Coordination is mentioned, but it seems more like you both check Netflix because you’re not asking ‘what if _ checks Netflix’. In other words, maybe you’re not acting in a ‘Bayesian manner’. Rather than evaluate the probability, you take the action. I would also guess you didn’t say Netflix because ‘the probability points that way’.
If you watch Netflix a lot (or have used it recently) then it might come to mind quickly. If your friend watches something else a lot, maybe they check there first.
There’s not much of a benefit of more elaborate protocols here (beyond texting your friend it’s not on netflix), if there’s not a lot of services to search. (Otherwise you could come up with a list together (or independently) and handle your parts (or pick some off the list at random, figuring that if both of you do that, you’re more likely to find it, even if you don’t coordinate more).) So I won’t go into a lot more detail here, other than mentioning:
There are other considerations at play here than probability: cost. You have Netflix so you check there.