I see superforcasting as the ability to give answers about how likely it is that a given event is going to happen and answer with a probability. That’s not the same skill as coming up with verbal justification.
Justification = P(“Opponent will agree that S is a good justification for prediction” | “I say S as my justification for a prediction”). If there are no division-by-zero errors, that should work.
You assume that the process of checking takes zero time so that you can just do it for every possible string in zero time.
If I the agent is like an LLM that takes some milliseconds to run the process of checking or a human that queries their intuition, this won’t happen in zero time.
But I guess I can see your point, the algorithm requires a lot of time and compute and maybe anything that has that much resources can answer questions like that with exhaustive enough search. I guess the problem as you define it is underconstrained.
I see superforcasting as the ability to give answers about how likely it is that a given event is going to happen and answer with a probability. That’s not the same skill as coming up with verbal justification.
Justification =
You assume that the process of checking takes zero time so that you can just do it for every possible string in zero time.
If I the agent is like an LLM that takes some milliseconds to run the process of checking or a human that queries their intuition, this won’t happen in zero time.
Then they aren’t perfect, aren’t they?
But I guess I can see your point, the algorithm requires a lot of time and compute and maybe anything that has that much resources can answer questions like that with exhaustive enough search. I guess the problem as you define it is underconstrained.
I meant perfect in the sense of the quality of the prediction not the amount of effort it takes to make the prediction.