Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

canbooo t1_iyc5e42 wrote

Reply to comment by ThisIsMyStonerAcount in [D] I'm at NeurIPS, AMA by ThisIsMyStonerAcount

Technically speaking, having 20% chance is not a point estimate, unless you assume that the distribution of the random variable itself is uncertain.

In that case, you accept being Bayesian so give us your f'in prior! /s

2

ThisIsMyStonerAcount OP t1_iyd4jfg wrote

what I meant is that you're asking me p(X=x)=0.2, where x is continuous, hence p(X=x) = 0.

2

canbooo t1_iydgqzt wrote

Oh, fair enough, my bad, I misunderstood what you mean. You are absolutely right for that case. For me the question is rather P(X>=x) = .2 since having more intelligence implies you have (implicit at least) 20% but this is already too many arguments for a joke. Enjoy the conference!

1

simplicialous t1_iye7mlu wrote

I think they're referring to a Bernoulli distribution being discrete, while the estimator that answers the dudes question would have to be wrt a continuous distribution.

​

Ironically I work with Continuous-Bernoulli latent-density VAEs so I don't get it. woosh.

2

canbooo t1_iyeabow wrote

Unsure about your assumption about the other assumptions but loled at the end nonetheless. Just to completely confuse some redditors:

r/woosh

1

simplicialous t1_iyebm79 wrote

Just shootin' from the hip.. I'm not sure why the answer to the guy's question would have to be continuous though...

I do know that the Bernoulli distribution (that is used to generate probability estimates) is discrete though...

🤷‍♀️

1