7:00 – 4:00 ASRC MKT
- Endless tweaking of the presentation
- Pinged Sy – Looks like something on Wednesday. Yep his place around 1:30
- More BIC
- The explanatory potential of team reasoning is not confined to pure coordination games like Hi-Lo. Team reasoning is assuredly important for its role in explaining the mystery facts about Hi-Lo; but I think we have stumbled on something bigger than a new theory of behaviour in pure coordination games. The key to endogenous group identification is not identity of interest but common interest giving rise to strong interdependence. There is common interest in Stag Hunts, Battles of the Sexes, bargaining games and even Prisoner’s Dilemmas. Indeed, in any interaction modelable as a ‘mixed motive’ game there is an element of common interest. Moreover, in most of the landmark cases, including the Prisoner’s Dilemma, the common interest is of the kind that creates strong interdependence, and so on the account of chapter 2 creates pressure for group identification. And given group identification, we should expect team reasoning. (pg 144)
- There is a second evolutionary argument in favour of the spontaneous team-reasoning hypothesis. Suppose there are two alternative mental mechanisms that, given common interest, would lead humans to act to further that interest. Other things being equal, the cognitively cheapest reliable mechanism will be favoured by selection. As Sober and Wilson (1998) put it, mechanisms will be selected that score well on availability, reliability and energy efficiency. Team reasoning meets these criteria; more exactly, it does better on them than the alternative heuristics suggested in the game theory and psychology literature for the efficient solution of common-interest games. (pg 146)
- (pg 149)
- Educational resources from machine learning experts at Google
- We’re working to make AI accessible by providing lessons, tutorials and hands-on exercises for people at all experience levels. Filter the resources below to start learning, building and problem-solving.
- A Structured Response to Misinformation: Defining and Annotating Credibility Indicators in News Articles
- The proliferation of misinformation in online news and its amplification by platforms are a growing concern, leading to numerous efforts to improve the detection of and response to misinformation. Given the variety of approaches, collective agreement on the indicators that signify credible content could allow for greater collaboration and data-sharing across initiatives. In this paper, we present an initial set of indicators for article credibility defined by a diverse coalition of experts. These indicators originate from both within an article’s text as well as from external sources or article metadata. As a proof-of-concept, we present a dataset of 40 articles of varying credibility annotated with our indicators by 6 trained annotators using specialized platforms. We discuss future steps including expanding annotation, broadening the set of indicators, and considering their use by platforms and the public, towards the development of interoperable standards for content credibility.
- Slide deck for above
- Sprint review
- Presented on Talk, CI2018 paper, JuryRoom, and ONR proposal.
- ONR proposal
- Send annotated copy to Wayne, along with the current draft. Basic question is “is this how it should look? Done
- Ask folks at school for format help?