Could human and machine forecasters work together to increase the intelligence agencies' foresight? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
We would like to know what the future is going to be like, so we can prepare for it. I'm not talking about building a time machine to secure the winning Powerball number ahead of time, but rather creating more accurate forecasts about what is likely to happen. Supposedly, this is what pundits and analysts do. They're supposed to be good at commenting on whether Greece will leave the Eurozone by 2014 or whether North Korea will fire missiles during the year or whether Barack Obama will win reelection. <\/p>\n
A body of research, however, conducted and synthesized by the University of Pennsylvania's Philip Tetlock finds that people, not just pundits but definitely pundits, are not very good at predicting future events. The book he wrote on the topic, Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?, is a touchstone for all the work that people like Nate Silver and Princeton's Sam Wang did tracking the last election. <\/p>\n
But aside from the electorate, who else might benefit from enhanced foresight? Perhaps the people tasked with gathering information about threats in the world. <\/p>\n
You probably have never heard of IARPA, but it's the wild R&D wing of our nation's intelligence services. Much like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which looks into the future of warfare for the Department of Defense, the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity looks at the future of analyzing information, spying, surveillance, and the like for the CIA, FBI, and NSA. <\/p>\n
We wrote in-depth about a project they're running to better understand metaphors (yes, metaphors), and, now, one of their projects is to apply Tetlock's insights into expert judgment. In particular, while Tetlock found that most analysts were terrible, some were better than others, particularly those he called foxes, who were more circumspect in their pronouncements and less wedded to a hard-and-fast worldview. The work suggested that it might be possible to improve people's judgments about the future. <\/p>\n
His work matched up perfectly with a call for proposals that IARPA put out two years ago for a new program called ACE, Aggregative Contingent Estimation. They wanted researchers to \"develop and test tools to provide accurate, timely, and continuous probabilistic forecasts and early warning of global events, by aggregating the judgments of many widely dispersed analysts.\" Well, Tetlock thought, perhaps I can apply my research to this problem. <\/p>\n
So, after his proposal was selected, IARPA paid for he and his team to recruit 3,000 volunteers, who each agreed to participate in forecasting tournaments that asked them to make specific, testable predictions about the future and then provided them feedback. They are competing against four other teams who were also funded by IARPA to see who can forecast the best. Just within the year and a half that the research study has been running, Tetlock found that people could better, much better, at making predictions than he thought possible. <\/p>\n
Tetlock discussed the work in an excellent interview with Edge.org last week. Here's how he described it: <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Go here to see the original: <\/p>\n
Spy Researchers Are Testing Cyborg Methods for Making Better Predictions About the Future<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Could human and machine forecasters work together to increase the intelligence agencies' foresight? We would like to know what the future is going to be like, so we can prepare for it. I'm not talking about building a time machine to secure the winning Powerball number ahead of time, but rather creating more accurate forecasts about what is likely to happen. Continue reading