brendan_oconnor_ai brendan_oconnor_ai-2007 brendan_oconnor_ai-2007-86 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Some ex-hedge fund analysts recently started a non-profit devoted to evaluating the effectiveness of hundreds of charities, and apparently have been making waves (NYT) . A few interesting reports have been posted on their website, givewell.net — they make recommendations for which charities where donors’ money is used most efficiently for saving lives or helping the disadvantaged. (Does anyone else have interesting data on charity effectiveness? I’ve heard that evaluations are the big thing in philanthropy world now, and certainly the Gates Foundation talks a lot about it.) Obviously this sort of evaluation is tricky, but it has to be the right approach. The NYT article makes them sound like they’re a bit arrogant, which is too bad; on the other hand, any one who makes claims to have better empirical information than the established wisdom will always end up in that dynamic. (OK, so I love young smart people who come up with better results than a conservative, close-minded
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Some ex-hedge fund analysts recently started a non-profit devoted to evaluating the effectiveness of hundreds of charities, and apparently have been making waves (NYT) . [sent-1, score-0.438]
2 net — they make recommendations for which charities where donors’ money is used most efficiently for saving lives or helping the disadvantaged. [sent-3, score-0.4]
3 (Does anyone else have interesting data on charity effectiveness? [sent-4, score-0.409]
4 I’ve heard that evaluations are the big thing in philanthropy world now, and certainly the Gates Foundation talks a lot about it. [sent-5, score-0.423]
5 ) Obviously this sort of evaluation is tricky, but it has to be the right approach. [sent-6, score-0.138]
6 The NYT article makes them sound like they’re a bit arrogant, which is too bad; on the other hand, any one who makes claims to have better empirical information than the established wisdom will always end up in that dynamic. [sent-7, score-0.297]
7 ) This particular methodological criticism ( from the article ) struck me as odd: “I think in general it’s a good thing,” said Thomas Tighe, president and chief executive of Direct Relief International, an agency that GiveWell evaluated but did not recommend. [sent-10, score-0.292]
8 Tighe has reservations about GiveWell’s method, saying it tends to be less a true measure of a charity’s effectiveness than simply a gauge of the charity’s ability to provide data on that effectiveness. [sent-12, score-0.387]
9 I think it’s fine to penalize an organization for failing to provide data on its effectiveness. [sent-13, score-0.235]
10 I guess it comes down to whether you believe empirical evaluation is necessary for organizational effectiveness. [sent-15, score-0.512]
11 The GiveWell people have an interesting argument that altruistic actions have a particularly poor feedback loop, which kills learning/optimization; therefore, you need to undertake explicit evaluative efforts. [sent-17, score-0.519]
12 From their blog: Now imagine an activity that consists of investing without looking at your results. [sent-18, score-0.137]
13 In other words, you buy a stock, but you never check whether the stock makes money or loses money. [sent-19, score-0.504]
14 You never read the news about whether the company does well or does poorly. [sent-20, score-0.178]
15 How much would you value someone with this sort of experience – buying and selling stocks without ever checking up on how they do? [sent-21, score-0.312]
16 Because that’s what “experience in philanthropy” (or workforce development, or education) comes down to, if unaccompanied by outcomes evaluation. [sent-22, score-0.192]
17 The peculiar thing about philanthropy is that because you’re trying to help someone else – not yourself – you need the big expensive study, or else you literally have no way of knowing whether what you did worked. [sent-23, score-0.961]
18 I really like this point — which is easier to notice, that you’re bankrupt or that someone else is? [sent-25, score-0.275]
19 Self-regarding actions get automatic evaluation but altruistic actions don’t, presumably because, even if we care enough to give to others, we do not care enough to expend energy evaluating their outcomes down the line. [sent-27, score-1.199]
20 But we really care about our own personal outcomes. [sent-28, score-0.21]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('charity', 0.252), ('givewell', 0.252), ('philanthropy', 0.252), ('altruistic', 0.219), ('effectiveness', 0.219), ('charities', 0.168), ('provide', 0.168), ('tighe', 0.168), ('else', 0.157), ('actions', 0.154), ('evaluating', 0.146), ('care', 0.143), ('evaluation', 0.138), ('stock', 0.133), ('experience', 0.124), ('someone', 0.118), ('whether', 0.106), ('outcomes', 0.102), ('makes', 0.101), ('thing', 0.098), ('empirical', 0.095), ('others', 0.092), ('money', 0.092), ('comes', 0.09), ('re', 0.088), ('nyt', 0.087), ('believe', 0.083), ('analysts', 0.073), ('arrogant', 0.073), ('donors', 0.073), ('president', 0.073), ('foundation', 0.073), ('methodological', 0.073), ('peculiar', 0.073), ('sucker', 0.073), ('agency', 0.073), ('evaluations', 0.073), ('explicit', 0.073), ('feedback', 0.073), ('helping', 0.073), ('struck', 0.073), ('thomas', 0.073), ('never', 0.072), ('without', 0.07), ('proof', 0.067), ('consists', 0.067), ('personal', 0.067), ('lives', 0.067), ('failing', 0.067), ('loop', 0.067)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 86 brendan oconnor ai-2007-12-20-Data-driven charity
Introduction: Some ex-hedge fund analysts recently started a non-profit devoted to evaluating the effectiveness of hundreds of charities, and apparently have been making waves (NYT) . A few interesting reports have been posted on their website, givewell.net — they make recommendations for which charities where donors’ money is used most efficiently for saving lives or helping the disadvantaged. (Does anyone else have interesting data on charity effectiveness? I’ve heard that evaluations are the big thing in philanthropy world now, and certainly the Gates Foundation talks a lot about it.) Obviously this sort of evaluation is tricky, but it has to be the right approach. The NYT article makes them sound like they’re a bit arrogant, which is too bad; on the other hand, any one who makes claims to have better empirical information than the established wisdom will always end up in that dynamic. (OK, so I love young smart people who come up with better results than a conservative, close-minded
2 0.095152691 125 brendan oconnor ai-2008-11-21-Netflix Prize
Introduction: Here’s a fascinating NYT article on the Netflix Prize for a better movie recommendation system. Tons of great stuff there; here’s a few highlights … First, a good unsupervised learning story: There’s a sort of unsettling, alien quality to their computers’ results. When the teams examine the ways that singular value decomposition is slotting movies into categories, sometimes it makes sense to them — as when the computer highlights what appears to be some essence of nerdiness in a bunch of sci-fi movies. But many categorizations are now so obscure that they cannot see the reasoning behind them. Possibly the algorithms are finding connections so deep and subconscious that customers themselves wouldn’t even recognize them. At one point, Chabbert showed me a list of movies that his algorithm had discovered share some ineffable similarity; it includes a historical movie, “Joan of Arc,” a wrestling video, “W.W.E.: SummerSlam 2004,” the comedy “It Had to Be You” and a version of Charle
3 0.090444766 19 brendan oconnor ai-2005-07-09-the psychology of design as explanation
Introduction: Since I posted the link to his blog, Baron just wrote about Cardinal Schönborn’s anti-evolution Op-Ed piece . I agree absolutely that people should learn about the psychology of judgment and probability for these sorts of questions, where it’s really hard to understand that random processes can generate things that seem not so random. I’m still thinking about how the psychology of judgment plays in to the analysis below . I have a feeling that people’s intuitions are usually too hospitable for explanations based on intention. E.g.: People are poor, therefore someone is trying to make them poor. Organizations (corportations, governments) do things, therefore someone (say, at the top) ordered them to do these things. Natural disasters happen, therefore someone is wishing them upon us. Etc., etc. I’m still not sure how a bayesian dissection of whether “looks intentful” implies “is intentful” shows us whether such an “intent-seeking” bias (hey, I have to call it something) is
4 0.083333477 162 brendan oconnor ai-2010-11-09-Greenspan on the Daily Show
Introduction: I love this Daily Show clip with Alan Greenspan . On emotion and economic forecasting. From 2007. GREENSPAN: I’ve been dealing with these big mathematical models of forecasting the economy, and I’m looking at what’s going on in the last few weeks. … If I could figure out a way to determine whether or not people are more fearful or changing to more euphoric … I don’t need any of this other stuff. I could forecast the economy better than any way I know. The trouble is that we can’t figure that out. I’ve been in the forecasting business for 50 years. … I’m no better than I ever was, and nobody else is. Forecasting 50 years ago was as good or as bad as it is today. And the reason is that human nature hasn’t changed. We can’t improve ourselves.” STEWART: You just bummed the [bleep] out of me. I’ve seen it in two separate talks now, from Peter Dodds (co-author of “Measuring the Happiness of Large-Scale Written Expression” ) and Eric Gilbert (co-author of “Widespre
5 0.081245825 129 brendan oconnor ai-2008-12-03-Statistics vs. Machine Learning, fight!
Introduction: 10/1/09 update — well, it’s been nearly a year, and I should say not everything in this rant is totally true, and I certainly believe much less of it now. Current take: Statistics , not machine learning, is the real deal, but unfortunately suffers from bad marketing. On the other hand, to the extent that bad marketing includes misguided undergraduate curriculums, there’s plenty of room to improve for everyone. So it’s pretty clear by now that statistics and machine learning aren’t very different fields. I was recently pointed to a very amusing comparison by the excellent statistician — and machine learning expert — Robert Tibshiriani . Reproduced here: Glossary Machine learning Statistics network, graphs model weights parameters learning fitting generalization test set performance supervised learning regression/classification unsupervised learning density estimation, clustering large grant = $1,000,000
6 0.076533251 133 brendan oconnor ai-2009-01-23-SF conference for data mining mercenaries
7 0.074798688 68 brendan oconnor ai-2007-07-08-Game outcome graphs — prisoner’s dilemma with FUN ARROWS!!!
8 0.070248328 56 brendan oconnor ai-2007-04-05-Evil
9 0.068857275 132 brendan oconnor ai-2009-01-07-Love it and hate it, R has come of age
10 0.067115948 131 brendan oconnor ai-2008-12-27-Facebook sentiment mining predicts presidential polls
11 0.066631638 135 brendan oconnor ai-2009-02-23-Comparison of data analysis packages: R, Matlab, SciPy, Excel, SAS, SPSS, Stata
12 0.065741897 203 brendan oconnor ai-2014-02-19-What the ACL-2014 review scores mean
13 0.065613158 138 brendan oconnor ai-2009-04-17-1 billion web page dataset from CMU
14 0.065188423 6 brendan oconnor ai-2005-06-25-idea: Morals are heuristics for socially optimal behavior
15 0.065003686 185 brendan oconnor ai-2012-07-17-p-values, CDF’s, NLP etc.
16 0.064677253 44 brendan oconnor ai-2006-08-30-A big, fun list of links I’m reading
17 0.064329743 96 brendan oconnor ai-2008-03-20-Spending money on others makes you happy
18 0.060377534 63 brendan oconnor ai-2007-06-10-Freak-Freakonomics (Ariel Rubinstein is the shit!)
19 0.059088528 198 brendan oconnor ai-2013-08-20-Some analysis of tweet shares and “predicting” election outcomes
20 0.058985226 90 brendan oconnor ai-2008-01-20-Moral psychology on Amazon Mechanical Turk
topicId topicWeight
[(0, -0.257), (1, 0.031), (2, -0.039), (3, -0.008), (4, -0.05), (5, -0.007), (6, -0.06), (7, -0.021), (8, 0.063), (9, -0.087), (10, -0.017), (11, -0.041), (12, -0.037), (13, -0.028), (14, 0.072), (15, -0.071), (16, 0.023), (17, -0.038), (18, -0.151), (19, -0.085), (20, -0.08), (21, -0.031), (22, 0.109), (23, 0.109), (24, -0.05), (25, -0.067), (26, 0.012), (27, -0.049), (28, 0.047), (29, 0.063), (30, 0.059), (31, 0.085), (32, -0.004), (33, -0.023), (34, 0.064), (35, -0.057), (36, 0.063), (37, -0.023), (38, 0.015), (39, 0.012), (40, 0.014), (41, 0.013), (42, 0.045), (43, -0.065), (44, 0.033), (45, 0.085), (46, 0.053), (47, 0.04), (48, -0.047), (49, -0.127)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97664517 86 brendan oconnor ai-2007-12-20-Data-driven charity
Introduction: Some ex-hedge fund analysts recently started a non-profit devoted to evaluating the effectiveness of hundreds of charities, and apparently have been making waves (NYT) . A few interesting reports have been posted on their website, givewell.net — they make recommendations for which charities where donors’ money is used most efficiently for saving lives or helping the disadvantaged. (Does anyone else have interesting data on charity effectiveness? I’ve heard that evaluations are the big thing in philanthropy world now, and certainly the Gates Foundation talks a lot about it.) Obviously this sort of evaluation is tricky, but it has to be the right approach. The NYT article makes them sound like they’re a bit arrogant, which is too bad; on the other hand, any one who makes claims to have better empirical information than the established wisdom will always end up in that dynamic. (OK, so I love young smart people who come up with better results than a conservative, close-minded
2 0.5766865 125 brendan oconnor ai-2008-11-21-Netflix Prize
Introduction: Here’s a fascinating NYT article on the Netflix Prize for a better movie recommendation system. Tons of great stuff there; here’s a few highlights … First, a good unsupervised learning story: There’s a sort of unsettling, alien quality to their computers’ results. When the teams examine the ways that singular value decomposition is slotting movies into categories, sometimes it makes sense to them — as when the computer highlights what appears to be some essence of nerdiness in a bunch of sci-fi movies. But many categorizations are now so obscure that they cannot see the reasoning behind them. Possibly the algorithms are finding connections so deep and subconscious that customers themselves wouldn’t even recognize them. At one point, Chabbert showed me a list of movies that his algorithm had discovered share some ineffable similarity; it includes a historical movie, “Joan of Arc,” a wrestling video, “W.W.E.: SummerSlam 2004,” the comedy “It Had to Be You” and a version of Charle
3 0.54889244 90 brendan oconnor ai-2008-01-20-Moral psychology on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Introduction: There’s a lot of exciting work in moral psychology right now. I’ve been telling various poor fools who listen to me to read something from Jonathan Haidt or Joshua Greene , but of course there’s a sea of too many articles and books of varying quality and intended audience. But just last week Steven Pinker wrote a great NYT magazine article, “The Moral Instinct,” which summarizes current research and tries to spell out a few implications. I recommend it highly, if just for presenting so many awesome examples. (Yes, this blog has poked fun at Pinker before. But in any case, he is a brilliant expository writer. The Language Instinct is still one of my favorite popular science books.) For a while now I’ve been thinking that recruiting subjects online could lend itself to collecting some really interesting behavioral science data. A few months ago I tried doing this with Amazon Mechanical Turk , a horribly misnamed web service that actually lets you create web-based tasks
4 0.53433967 50 brendan oconnor ai-2007-02-15-Pascal’s Wager
Introduction: Either God is tricky, or maybe probability is. Pascal’s Wager: Say there’s only a small chance God exists. If you are an atheist but God does actually exist, He will send you to hell for eternity. This is infinitely bad. Therefore you should believe in God on the off-chance he does exist, since a small chance of something infinitely bad is worse than the alternative. Believe in Pascal’s Wager? Have I got a deal for you! says if you believe it, you should send Alex Tabarrok money because he will put in a good word to God for you. Hey, there’s a small chance he has a direct line to God, which yields infinite utility (or avoids hell’s infinite disutility). FWIW, I’m thinking the paradoxes in this sort of arithmetic always happen when you start doing addition/multiplication distribution across those darn infinities. Like on the third page Tabarrok starts talking about p1*Inf – p2*Inf = (p1-p2)*Inf. That’s shady shit. And more about the big PW . I don’t like the SEP ent
5 0.52832359 73 brendan oconnor ai-2007-08-05-Are ideas interesting, or are they true?
Introduction: From an NYT Magazine article this Sunday, paraphrasing Isaiah Berlin : The philosopher Isaiah Berlin once said that the trouble with academics and commentators is that they care more about whether ideas are interesting than whether they are true. Politicians live by ideas just as much as professional thinkers do, but they can’t afford the luxury of entertaining ideas that are merely interesting. They have to work with the small number of ideas that happen to be true and the even smaller number that happen to be applicable to real life. In academic life, false ideas are merely false and useless ones can be fun to play with. In political life, false ideas can ruin the lives of millions and useless ones can waste precious resources. An intellectual’s responsibility for his ideas is to follow their consequences wherever they may lead. A politician’s responsibility is to master those consequences and prevent them from doing harm. I can’t speak for that level of politics, but I’ve
6 0.50354189 133 brendan oconnor ai-2009-01-23-SF conference for data mining mercenaries
7 0.50025141 162 brendan oconnor ai-2010-11-09-Greenspan on the Daily Show
8 0.49487701 84 brendan oconnor ai-2007-11-26-How did Freud become a respected humanist?!
9 0.47462988 63 brendan oconnor ai-2007-06-10-Freak-Freakonomics (Ariel Rubinstein is the shit!)
10 0.47416478 56 brendan oconnor ai-2007-04-05-Evil
11 0.43380034 19 brendan oconnor ai-2005-07-09-the psychology of design as explanation
12 0.43360284 68 brendan oconnor ai-2007-07-08-Game outcome graphs — prisoner’s dilemma with FUN ARROWS!!!
13 0.41971946 158 brendan oconnor ai-2010-03-31-How Facebook privacy failed me
14 0.41679931 87 brendan oconnor ai-2007-12-26-What is experimental philosophy?
15 0.41500956 67 brendan oconnor ai-2007-07-07-Happiness incarnate on the Colbert Report
16 0.41132653 131 brendan oconnor ai-2008-12-27-Facebook sentiment mining predicts presidential polls
17 0.40081114 22 brendan oconnor ai-2005-07-31-war death statistics
18 0.39935327 6 brendan oconnor ai-2005-06-25-idea: Morals are heuristics for socially optimal behavior
19 0.39331627 132 brendan oconnor ai-2009-01-07-Love it and hate it, R has come of age
20 0.38608319 140 brendan oconnor ai-2009-05-18-Announcing TweetMotif for summarizing twitter topics
topicId topicWeight
[(16, 0.03), (22, 0.014), (24, 0.048), (28, 0.014), (43, 0.016), (44, 0.074), (48, 0.026), (55, 0.057), (70, 0.034), (74, 0.211), (96, 0.013), (99, 0.387)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.87220323 86 brendan oconnor ai-2007-12-20-Data-driven charity
Introduction: Some ex-hedge fund analysts recently started a non-profit devoted to evaluating the effectiveness of hundreds of charities, and apparently have been making waves (NYT) . A few interesting reports have been posted on their website, givewell.net — they make recommendations for which charities where donors’ money is used most efficiently for saving lives or helping the disadvantaged. (Does anyone else have interesting data on charity effectiveness? I’ve heard that evaluations are the big thing in philanthropy world now, and certainly the Gates Foundation talks a lot about it.) Obviously this sort of evaluation is tricky, but it has to be the right approach. The NYT article makes them sound like they’re a bit arrogant, which is too bad; on the other hand, any one who makes claims to have better empirical information than the established wisdom will always end up in that dynamic. (OK, so I love young smart people who come up with better results than a conservative, close-minded
2 0.49759826 203 brendan oconnor ai-2014-02-19-What the ACL-2014 review scores mean
Introduction: I’ve had several people ask me what the numbers in ACL reviews mean — and I can’t find anywhere online where they’re described. (Can anyone point this out if it is somewhere?) So here’s the review form, below. They all go from 1 to 5, with 5 the best. I think the review emails to authors only include a subset of the below — for example, “Overall Recommendation” is not included? The CFP said that they have different types of review forms for different types of papers. I think this one is for a standard full paper. I guess what people really want to know is what scores tend to correspond to acceptances. I really have no idea and I get the impression this can change year to year. I have no involvement with the ACL conference besides being one of many, many reviewers. APPROPRIATENESS (1-5) Does the paper fit in ACL 2014? (Please answer this question in light of the desire to broaden the scope of the research areas represented at ACL.) 5: Certainly. 4: Probabl
3 0.49089119 123 brendan oconnor ai-2008-11-12-Disease tracking with web queries and social messaging (Google, Twitter, Facebook…)
Introduction: This is a good idea: in a search engine’s query logs, look for outbreaks of queries like [[flu symptoms]] in a given region. I’ve heard (from Roddy ) that this trick also works well on Facebook statuses (e.g. “Feeling crappy this morning, think I just got the flu”). Google Uses Web Searches to Track Flu’s Spread – NYTimes.com Google Flu Trends – google.org For an example with a publicly available data feed, these queries works decently well on Twitter search: [[ flu -shot -google ]] (high recall) [[ "muscle aches" flu -shot ]] (high precision) The “muscle aches” query is too sparse and the general query is too noisy, but you could imagine some more tricks to clean it up, then train a classifier, etc. With a bit more work it looks like geolocation information can be had out of the Twitter search API .
4 0.48521242 63 brendan oconnor ai-2007-06-10-Freak-Freakonomics (Ariel Rubinstein is the shit!)
Introduction: I don’t care how lame anyone thinks this is, but economic theorist Ariel Rubinstein is the shit. He’s funny, self-deprecating, and brilliant. I was just re-reading his delightful, sarcastic review of Freakonomics . (Overly dramatized visual depiction below; hey, conflict sells.) The review consists of excerpts from his own upcoming super-worldwide-bestseller, “Freak-Freakonomics”. It is full of golden quotes such as: Chapter 2: Why do economists earn more than mathematicians? … The comparison between architects and prostitutes can be applied to mathematicians and economists: The former are more skilled, highly educated and intelligent. To elaborate: Levitt has never encountered a girl who dreams of being a prostitute and I have never met a child who dreams of being an economist. Like prostitutes, the skill required of economists is “not necessarily ‘specialized’” (106). And, finally, here is a new explanation for the salary gap between mathematicians and eco
5 0.48467579 26 brendan oconnor ai-2005-09-02-cognitive modelling is rational choice++
Introduction: Rational choice has been a huge imperialistic success, growing in popularity and being applied to more and more fields. Why is this? It’s not because the rational choice model of decision-making is particularly realistic. Rather, it’s because rational choice is a completely specified theory of human behavior , and therefore is great at generating hypotheses. Given any situation involving people, rational choice can be used to generate a hypothesis about what to expect. That is, you just ask, “What would a person do to maximize their own benefit?” Similar things have been said about evolutionary psychology: you can always predict behavior by asking “what would hunter-gatherers do?” Now, certainly both rational choice and evolutionary psychology don’t always generate correct hypotheses, but they’re incredibly useful because they at least give you a starting point. Witness the theory of bounded rationality: just like rational choice, except amended to consider computational l
6 0.47702658 105 brendan oconnor ai-2008-06-05-Clinton-Obama support visualization
7 0.47538373 77 brendan oconnor ai-2007-09-15-Dollar auction
8 0.47204128 19 brendan oconnor ai-2005-07-09-the psychology of design as explanation
9 0.46047926 152 brendan oconnor ai-2009-09-08-Another R flashmob today
10 0.45133683 138 brendan oconnor ai-2009-04-17-1 billion web page dataset from CMU
11 0.44906729 129 brendan oconnor ai-2008-12-03-Statistics vs. Machine Learning, fight!
13 0.43388903 188 brendan oconnor ai-2012-10-02-Powerset’s natural language search system
14 0.41044357 130 brendan oconnor ai-2008-12-18-Information cost and genocide
15 0.40705481 80 brendan oconnor ai-2007-10-31-neo institutional economic fun!
16 0.4039582 200 brendan oconnor ai-2013-09-13-Response on our movie personas paper
17 0.39753047 6 brendan oconnor ai-2005-06-25-idea: Morals are heuristics for socially optimal behavior
18 0.39713493 176 brendan oconnor ai-2011-10-05-Be careful with dictionary-based text analysis
19 0.39703673 179 brendan oconnor ai-2012-02-02-Histograms — matplotlib vs. R