One game show, two boys, two aces, three prisoners - what’s an AI to do?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We review a quartet of widely discussed probability puzzles – Monty Hall, the three prisoners, the two boys, and the two aces. Pearl explains why the Monty Hall problem is counterintuitive using a causal diagram. Glenn Shafer uses the puzzle of the two aces to justify reintroducing to probability theory protocols that specify how the information we condition on is obtained. Pearl, in one treatment of the three prisoners, adds to his representation random variables that distinguish actual events and observations. The puzzle of the two boys took a perplexing twist in 2010. We show the puzzles have similar features, and each can be made to give different answers to simple queries corresponding to different presentations of the word problem. We offer a unified treatment that explains this phenomenon in strictly technical terms, as opposed to cognitive or epistemic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it