alt Hacker NewsI was reading Nate Silver's book "On The Edge" and there is an interesting part where he takes predictions on the usage of nuclear weapons taken from just after World War 2 and compares them to what the Bayesian prediction would be given what actually happened.
Post World War 2, some people had the odds per year at 10%. Some of that is probably a mix of recency bias + not understanding how to use new weapons etc etc but as Silver points out, the odds were much lower.
I mention this only b/c the "could something trained on LLMs of the time predict the future" always makes me think of it.
Predicting the future is problematic, agreed.
Re: the Nate Silver nuclear weapons example, that's pretty weak - eg: given (say) I've just seen three heads in a row (exactly once) .. does that alter anything about "the odds".
Having seen nuclear weapons not used post WWII ... does that inform us about "the odds" or the several times their use was almost certain (eg: Cuban missile crisis) save for out of band behaviour by individuals that averted use and escalation?