Evidence receipt / evaluation
Published · transcript-backedJeff Beck: evaluation
31 Dec 2025 Machine Learning Street Talk Bayesian Brain, Scientific Method, and Models [Dr. Jeff Beck]
“Now we have to like be super careful with our words. They're relatively optimal because they're not actually using a 100% of the information that the computer like your the visual information that you use, you don't use a 100% of the information that the computer provided you.”
Source trail
Everything needed to verify it.
- Speaker
- Jeff Beck
- Attribution
- Verified speaker
- Claim type
- evaluation
- Recorded
- 31 Dec 2025
- Publisher
- Machine Learning Street Talk
Transcript context
…Oh interesting, so it's almost like we we're so efficient that the only explanation that makes sense is that we must be doing Bayesian analysis. Yeah more or less. Mean it's a bit more precise than that. It's not just efficiency, it's you know like the Q combination experiments I think are really compelling. And so the idea behind a cue combination experiment is that I give you 2 pieces of information about the same thing. And 1 piece of information is more reliable than the other, and the degree of reliability changes on a trial by trial basis. So you never know a priori that, like, say, the visual cue as opposed to the auditory cue is gonna be the more reliable thing. And yet, nonetheless, when people combine those 2 pieces of information, they take into account the the relative reliability on a trial by trial basis. And that means that they're optimal in a sense. Now we have to like be super careful with our words. They're relatively optimal because they're not actually using a 100% of the information that the computer like your the visual information that you use, you don't use a 100% of the information that the computer provided you. Right? But you know, there is some loss between the computer screen and your brain mediated in principle by but it the system behaves as if, right, it has optimally combined those 2 cues. It has taken into account uncertainty. This also is because it was like how we really do think about the world. Like we take into account uncertainty all the time in our decisions. Right? You know this if you're driven in the fog, you're aware of this. 9090% of what the brain does is decide what to ignore. Yeah. Right? And because because if if we didn't, right, we'd be screwed. Right? We get we receive an insane amount of information, most of which does not even we don't even bother to process. Right? So Yeah. Yeah. Is is that definitely the case, though? Do do you think that we could actually be processing more information than we know?…
Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.