It may be better than previous models, but that "70%" number is misleading:
> The outcome was a weekly forecast in which the AI successfully predicted 14 earthquakes within about 200 miles of where it estimated they would happen and at almost exactly the calculated strength. It missed one earthquake and gave eight false warnings.
So 14 true positives and 8 false positives, which means the positive predictive value is not great, less than 65%. And I didn't read the paper for the details of the timing, but the article said "a week out", so I'm assuming it means the predictions meant the earthquake could strike in a minute or in 7 days.
What would governments/policy makers actually be able to do with any of this data? Not to denigrate it as a step forward, but I'm having trouble seeing much practical impact at all.
As someone who lives in an earthquake-prone area, I don't think those stats are high enough that they would lead officials to evacuate an area as a precaution. But it would be a useful indicator to encourage people to make sure they have their earthquake supplies topped up and ready to go.
I disagree, in Japan we just had the "megaquake" warning for a week, maybe it was prudent but it was also very distracting, kind of worrying, and nothing happened in the end. On the other hand we have Typhoon warnings, which are actually much more predictable and quite useful.
My point, unless it's something like 90-95% accurate, I don't think it's useful at all. Mostly a distraction. When you live in a seismically active area, you just need to be prepared all the time.
Fair enough. I'm in Wellington and the risk profile here is a lot different to Japan. From a quick read of a BBC article, I see the "megaquake" you were warned about could have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in the worst case scenario. Here in Wellington I've read estimates of up to thousands of deaths in the worst case scenario. But regardless, people here tend to be quite blasé about emergency supplies - perhaps if there was a heightened risk, people might actually check their grab-bags and get their supplies in order.
It wasn't a warning with a 70% accuracy though. It was saying it's 3x or 4x more likely than usual, which is still pretty unlikely. I don't think more information is ever a bad thing. Should countries have published covid statistics or hid them because it's very distracting, kind of worrying, and nothing really happened in the end? It was useful to know when cases were going up in your community so you can take precautions.
I took the megaquake warning as me realizing that I need to have at least 3 days of water stockpiled. I had 0. I don't really want to be a burden upon my neighbors in case of an earthquake, so it made sense just to store some water.
> What would governments/policy makers actually be able to do with any of this data? Not to denigrate it as a step forward, but I'm having trouble seeing much practical impact at all.
You can look at how beneficial hurricane forecasting has been in saving lives, which has been increasing in accuracy for longer lead times. It's very useful to know something bad is likely going to happen somewhere so you can move resources and evacuate people.
> So 14 true positives and 8 false positives, which means the positive predictive value is not great, less than 65%.
This actually seems huge to me unless we already are hitting close to 65%. I'm not sure how this wouldn't be a big deal compared to what I understand the status quo to be (unpredictable).
Of course, if the forecasts are just a couple minutes out at best, then that's way less useful. But at the very least an emergency alert could be sent out so people can get to safety which could help.
But if you, when you received a warning, knew that roughly a third of the time nothing would happen, would you still adjust your plans or leave?
And even if you trusted the warning, would you leave immediately? Considering that the warning was for the next week, ie the quake could come next minute or in six days.
Leave. If you live in such an area it would be a way of life. You probably have a spare toothbrush at someone else's house already. Unless you have a bunker or something that is considered safe.
Used to live near Japan, in a 5-story concrete building. We had so many earthquakes, the things were getting thrown off the shelves multiple times a year. There is nowhere to leave for a week. And there is a very slim chance anything would collapse, because the buildings are specifically built to withstand up to around 9 richter.
The sacrifice is loss of income from not working, losing job, or at least using up paid time off. There is also disruption to kids’ schedules and activities, as well as lodging and transportation costs to live somewhere else for a week.
> The outcome was a weekly forecast in which the AI successfully predicted 14 earthquakes within about 200 miles of where it estimated they would happen and at almost exactly the calculated strength. It missed one earthquake and gave eight false warnings.
So 14 true positives and 8 false positives, which means the positive predictive value is not great, less than 65%. And I didn't read the paper for the details of the timing, but the article said "a week out", so I'm assuming it means the predictions meant the earthquake could strike in a minute or in 7 days.
What would governments/policy makers actually be able to do with any of this data? Not to denigrate it as a step forward, but I'm having trouble seeing much practical impact at all.