You confused the numbers 22 and 45. But the idea is mostly correct: if the author’s model and parameter values were true, it would place Draymond at the 45th place. On the other hand, Taylor’s opinion places Draymond on the 22nd place and the author believes that Taylor knows something much better.
This implies that the author’s model either got some facts wrong or doesn’t take into account something unknown to the author, but known to Taylor. If the author described the model, then others would be able to point out potential mistakes. But you cannot tell what exactly you don’t know, only potential areas of search.[1]
EDIT: As an example, one could study Ajeya Cotra’s model, which is wrong on so many levels that I find it hard to believe that the model even appeared.
However, given access to a ground truth like the location of Uranus, one can understand what factor affects the model and where one could find the factor’s potential source.
You confused the numbers 22 and 45. But the idea is mostly correct: if the author’s model and parameter values were true, it would place Draymond at the 45th place. On the other hand, Taylor’s opinion places Draymond on the 22nd place and the author believes that Taylor knows something much better.
This implies that the author’s model either got some facts wrong or doesn’t take into account something unknown to the author, but known to Taylor. If the author described the model, then others would be able to point out potential mistakes. But you cannot tell what exactly you don’t know, only potential areas of search.[1]
EDIT: As an example, one could study Ajeya Cotra’s model, which is wrong on so many levels that I find it hard to believe that the model even appeared.
However, given access to a ground truth like the location of Uranus, one can understand what factor affects the model and where one could find the factor’s potential source.