Often, ‘simple says it best’!
Technology could help us all … but it won’t.
Spurious Accuracy
“At one point, the drone was estimated to be approximately 98 feet from the passenger jet.”
“Estimated?” “Approximately?” 98 feet actually looks astonishingly accurate doesn’t it? Is someone having a laugh? No, not exactly; it’s just the sort of thing that happens when people do silly things with numbers.
We’ll come back to that one. For now, to get an idea of what’s going on, let’s take another example, adapted from Darrell Huff‘s magnificent How to Lie with Statistics …
Suppose you’re a would-be statistical researcher and you’ve decided to write something on how long people sleep. You’re going to talk to 100 people (which isn’t a huge number for a study but things have been published on less data) about it. And here’s where it starts to go wrong …
Good Robot? Bad Robot?
It’s 2030 and you’re not doing your old job any more because an AI machine can do it faster, cheaper and safer. How’s that working out for you?
But, first of all, let’s deal with some basic logic. How fair is this?
- Gavin: “Steve, what’ll we do for tea tonight if Mum’s not there to cook?”
- Steve: “Dunno. Ask Dad? Or make it ourselves? Or go down the chippy?”
- Gavin: “Steve, you’re an idiot. We won’t have do any of that because Mum will be there!”
Bit harsh on Steve, yes? He was only answering the question that was put to him. If their Mum wasn’t there, he had an idea of what could happen. He wasn’t asked whether he thought she might be.
Under the lamp
Turing's Radiator 