For example, moving from a 90% chance to a 95% chance of copying a skill correctly doubles the expected length of any given transmission chain, allowing much faster cultural accumulation. This suggests that there’s a naturally abrupt increase in the usefulness of culture
This makes sense when there’s only one type of thing to teach / imitate. But some things are easier to teach and imitate than others (e. g. catching a fish vs. building a house). And while there may be an abrupt jump in the ability to teach or imitate each particular skill, this argument doesn’t show that there will be a jump in the number of skills that can be taught /imitated. (Which is what matters)
Yeah, I don’t think this is a conclusive argument, it’s just pointing to an intuition (which was then backed up by simulations in the paper). And the importance of transmission fidelity is probably higher when we’re thinking about cumulative culture (with some skills being prerequisites for others), not just acquiring independent skills. But I do think your point is a good one.
This makes sense when there’s only one type of thing to teach / imitate. But some things are easier to teach and imitate than others (e. g. catching a fish vs. building a house). And while there may be an abrupt jump in the ability to teach or imitate each particular skill, this argument doesn’t show that there will be a jump in the number of skills that can be taught /imitated. (Which is what matters)
Yeah, I don’t think this is a conclusive argument, it’s just pointing to an intuition (which was then backed up by simulations in the paper). And the importance of transmission fidelity is probably higher when we’re thinking about cumulative culture (with some skills being prerequisites for others), not just acquiring independent skills. But I do think your point is a good one.