F. Blair (guest) meinte am 5. Jul, 11:40:
surveys
I don't understand: the paper says surveys (which reflect the wisdom of crowds -- at least the wisdom of the forecaster crowd) outperform all these other strategies. How does that mean "there seem to be no rules"? There is a rule suggested by the paper: rely on the wisdom of the forecasting crowd if you want the best available answer (which is, to be sure, not going to be a perfect answer by any objective measure).
Eric Falkenstein antwortete am 5. Jul, 16:03:
But Tetlock, among others, argues simple models outperform experts. And though in this case the survey is about 'experts', in other cases the masses outperform experts.
Bernard Guerrero (guest) antwortete am 6. Jul, 18:12:
The obvious question then arises...
...how are the forecasters in the "expert crowd" coming up with their forecasts? :^) If they're applying similar simple algorithms to come up with their forecasts, then the paper's result would boil down to an application of the Law of Large Numbers, no? Apologies if the paper tackles this issue, I haven't popped it open yet.Tetlock's results apply, IIRC, to individual experts being treated as predictors. Aggregate a bunch of them and the errors should start to wash out. This implies, however, that a survey of algorithms should produce similar results. And you don't have to pay the algorithm.
