Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The "overlearning the game" problem

andrewoneverything.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 144 posts

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#101

Post by sophacles »

tsycho wrote: post #90
wisty wrote: post #10

It's related to Goodhart's Law: Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes. This is often the result of attempting to overoptimize a system. You can optimize a race car to a huge degree, because you know exactly what you want it to do. You can't optimize a schooling system, because you don't know exactly what you want it to do. A little noise is a go…

Very interesting comment, hadn't heard of Sortition before. However, I see a few practical problems with this. First, it makes it harder to fix any errors/cheating. You can ask for a reevaluation of exam papers or a recount of the ballot if you felt that something shady happened, but then what about the randomization phase. In the admissions example for instance, if after a re-eval, the composition of students in the…

I don't think the core of the idea is literal randomness injection. Compare for a moment high precision measuring devices. Any decent measuring device comes with a manual describing the tolerances of the device, the error rate, the expected skew caused by error and so on. They may be highly accurate, and very precise, but they don't claim 100% accuracy. Yet, ideally, this should be a simple task -- the math says if we do X to make the device, there is only one solution and the device is perfect. We take pains with these devices to construct them perfectly, but errors still slip in - and we acknowledge it. To counter these errors we do statistical analysis on the machines' output, we scrutinize anomalous readings and discard or normalize data within the error range and otherwise account for errors.

Look now at the Bush/Gore election cited above, in light of this. A vote is simply a measurement of the people's desire for leader X or leader Y. This measurement is taken via a tool called the ballot. The ballot is for some reason taken as an ideal measuring device - for some reason we think it is a perfect tool of measurement. Yet, a huge chunk of the debate and contention of the scenario came out of problems with the ballot itself -- hanging chad, butterfly ballot confusion, and so on, are all measurement issues. At some point, we should have said "look this is just too close to call with our ballot measuring system, other measures or means should be used to determine the outcome".

The same is true of tests, they are an imperfect measuring system we are trying to treat as idea; so are many other systems you allude to.

The core idea here, is to stop treating our measurements as some sort of ideal measurement and instead look at alternate measures and methods once you get within the error range of the original measuring device -- at this point you are in the realm of "luck" anyway, because there are other unaccounted factors affecting the measurement anyway. Further, it has no more effect on cheating than treating an imperfect measure as ideal -- cheaters in both cases attempt to exploit unnoticable issues in the measurement. Statistical cheating detection already considers this sort of thing anyway, if the statsticians are any good.

As for the social situation you present -- this is a trickier problem, but I suspect a large portion of it could go away once proper understanding is given to people. A lot of the "unfair" complaints are essentially based around "the measure is perfect, so if I can tweak the value measured of my by a small bit, it has some fundamental implication". Essentially we need to train people on the difference between platonic ideals and the realities of the scenario. Then instead of complaining over obscure minutia, energy can be focused on either bettering the overall situation, or bettering the measurement.

As to your final point: ignoring the imperfectness and pretending it is perfect does not really change the gaming problem, in fact it adds to it, because when you treat the imperfect as perfect, you must have lots of complicated rules, which also allow for crazy gaming. Instead effort could be better spent on gaming detection or simple administrator investigation/oversight.

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#102

Post by seats »

redthrowaway wrote: post #79
drewcrawford wrote: post #12

If you pay a man by the hour, he'll work a lot of hours. If you pay him by the brick, he'll lay a lot of bricks. These "games" are basically the equivalent of counting lines of code or checkins. We're measuring poor proxies instead of the things we're actually interested in. The solution isn't an arms race to build bigger and better proxies, the solution is to measure real things instead of artificial ones. Here's ju…

As you allude to, the problem with direct democracy is that people are stupid. Not all people about all things, but most people about most things. The realm of human knowledge is simply too vast for anyone to have a broad command of, so we specialize. This means that, for any given issue, the vast majority of people are ignorant about its specifics. Thus we cannot expect the masses to make wise decisions about most i…

>> The realm of human knowledge is simply too vast for anyone to have a broad command of, so we specialize.

This statement could actually be used just as easily against voting for representatives as we do today. The real question is do you trust public at large to make a better or worse opinion than on some issue you are deeply informed on? In other words the comparison should be versus the existing system as a whole, not versus an expert on a single topic.

My perception of the demagogue is that their power comes from railing against the current authority. So while I can agree that it seems likely that a 'true democracy' would instantly prop up the Becks and Palins of the country, who do they blame when a majority of people vote that they are wrong? Or maybe even more extreme who do they blame when their views and proposals are voted for but still fail?

There is no longer a 'bad guy' to blame and arguments put forth by a demagogue will have to deal with two new realities-

1- They can no longer claim they are part of the majority opinion in an effort to gain further support. It'd be hard for Sarah Palin to keep up her 'regular joe' persona and reconcile it with being in major disagreement with a majority of the country

2- They can no longer claim obstruction by some authority steam rolling them in legislature. It would become pointless to argue about which pundit supported which policy or law in the past, because every individual would have their personal voting record.

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#103

Post by Helianthus »

jacques_chester wrote: post #34
david927 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a fantastic response. I'm shocked at how many people have unsubstantiated fears of simply eliminating an unnecessary proxy. The reason we didn't have direct democracy before is because it wasn't practical before -- not because those elected are superior and can ignore what the people wish for. It is now practical to have a direct democracy: If we can bank online, we can vote online. In contrast, there are 26 l…

My point is, and it remains, that the problem is not technological. Is it possible now to instantly poll all citizens, at any moment, on a question of law? Absolutely. Indeed we've had that technology for decades -- since the 50s at least with tabulators and telephones. The point I am making, and which I was originally being downvoted for making, is that technology is not the point . Social dynamics are the point. An…

I'm late to the table and you might not read this, but something conspicuously absent from this conversation is a discussion of the representative nature of the US government by _state_.

The higher legislative branch gives more weight to states as individual entities for very precisely balanced reasons. In a very real sense it is not representatives that act, but states themselves.

This has been incredibly important, because it further decouples the population from the decision. Sparsely populated states have traditionally had different concerns than urban states: the Popularist Party of the late 19th century was sharply divided along these lines.

In other words, the popular vote is disregarded because different 'types' of people shouldn't have too much power: the density of cities should not grant that population dominion over the agrarian folk.

People complained about the popular vote being for Gore without realizing that the system was still functioning as intended: the states vote for the president, their votes being determined by the population within. Those foolish states that split their electoral votes make themselves irrelevant!

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#104

Post by acroyear »

redthrowaway wrote: post #79
drewcrawford wrote: post #12

If you pay a man by the hour, he'll work a lot of hours. If you pay him by the brick, he'll lay a lot of bricks. These "games" are basically the equivalent of counting lines of code or checkins. We're measuring poor proxies instead of the things we're actually interested in. The solution isn't an arms race to build bigger and better proxies, the solution is to measure real things instead of artificial ones. Here's ju…

As you allude to, the problem with direct democracy is that people are stupid. Not all people about all things, but most people about most things. The realm of human knowledge is simply too vast for anyone to have a broad command of, so we specialize. This means that, for any given issue, the vast majority of people are ignorant about its specifics. Thus we cannot expect the masses to make wise decisions about most i…

I like the idea of a Ward Republic (see Jefferson) coupled with a Delegate Democracy.

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#105

Post by acroyear »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #37

I think "overlearning" is not a good term (edit: it is quite accurate, though), because it tend to suggest the worst solution of all: that we refrain from learning. I prefer "lost purposes"[1]. The primary purpose of a game is generally to Have Fun. This purpose is lost if you have "solved" the game. The stated purpose of patents is to foster innovation. However it doesn't work[2]. The purpose of schools is learning.…

i prefer the term 'metagaming'.

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#106

Post by pnathan »

david927 wrote: post #84
roel_v wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not suggesting an alternative, well maybe in the most abstract sense, but in your post several levels up from here there is not even a hint at how to address even just the most obvious flaws in letting people vote for each bill. There's no 'argument' made, just a cry for revolution - of the type that is very common amongst high school and undergraduate students; rising from a simplistic world view that fails t…

There are over 13,000 full-time lobbyists for the 535 representatives in Washington, and their only job is, when legislation goes the way of the public and not the way of their sponsors, to use their financial muscle to bribe a different outcome. Despite decades of the public electing officials who say they'll fight it, it has only grown worse. You don't seem to have valid alternatives other than to be deeply shocked…

Wow, you really need to read history and learn a bit about mob behavior.

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#107

Post by roel_v »

david927 wrote: post #84
roel_v wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not suggesting an alternative, well maybe in the most abstract sense, but in your post several levels up from here there is not even a hint at how to address even just the most obvious flaws in letting people vote for each bill. There's no 'argument' made, just a cry for revolution - of the type that is very common amongst high school and undergraduate students; rising from a simplistic world view that fails t…

There are over 13,000 full-time lobbyists for the 535 representatives in Washington, and their only job is, when legislation goes the way of the public and not the way of their sponsors, to use their financial muscle to bribe a different outcome. Despite decades of the public electing officials who say they'll fight it, it has only grown worse. You don't seem to have valid alternatives other than to be deeply shocked…

Huh? Did you even read any of my previous posts? I don't care about how 'the internet will transform politics', and of course the current process is suboptimal, but those discussions are so repetitive boring and trite that I really can't be bothered with it. Nor did I ever try to. I was merely pointing out that your 'argument' isn't an argument in the honest intellectual sense of the word, it's just a cascade of slogans, and at first I thought it was going to be covered with a thin veil of content, but at least now you acknowledge that you're not interested in that and that you prefer to retreat to spouting empty rhetoric.

Of course you don't need my permission, why would I care, I don't even know you. I just thought that you were debating on content, and was annoyed that the one person who was providing sound reasoning was being downvoted for it.

Anyway, good luck with your revolution, be sure to post back when you're done.

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#108

Post by redthrowaway »

seats wrote: post #102
redthrowaway wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you allude to, the problem with direct democracy is that people are stupid. Not all people about all things, but most people about most things. The realm of human knowledge is simply too vast for anyone to have a broad command of, so we specialize. This means that, for any given issue, the vast majority of people are ignorant about its specifics. Thus we cannot expect the masses to make wise decisions about most i…

>> The realm of human knowledge is simply too vast for anyone to have a broad command of, so we specialize. This statement could actually be used just as easily against voting for representatives as we do today. The real question is do you trust public at large to make a better or worse opinion than on some issue you are deeply informed on? In other words the comparison should be versus the existing system as a whole…

>> This statement could actually be used just as easily against voting for representatives as we do today.

True. I'm no big fan of representative democracy, it just happens to be the least bad system we've tried.

>> The real question is do you trust public at large to make a better or worse opinion than on some issue you are deeply informed on?

Well, yes, because they are at least (usually) experts in business or law, which are the domains that are most important to government. Some will be military or foreign policy experts, and they will (hopefully) be appointed to the relevant subcommittees. It's a fairly broken system, open to all kinds of abuses and with little assurance of wise leadership, but I still think the competence of the average politician in crafting policy is higher than that of the average citizen.

>> My perception of the demagogue is that their power comes from railing against the current authority.

I think there's quite a bit of truth in that. I don't, however, think it's a necessary truth. Hitler was a classic demagogue, even and especially after he gained power. He appealed to antisemitism and a fierce nationalism, rather than to the incompetence of politicians. While the current crop in the US gain power by railing against the established political class in DC, that's not the only possible source of power for them.

>> It'd be hard for Sarah Palin to keep up her 'regular joe' persona and reconcile it with being in major disagreement with a majority of the country.

Reconciling her views with reality has never been particularly important to her, and I don't see how that would change in a direct democracy. She could just as easily rail against the liberals in the MSM who poison the electorate with their propaganda.

Ultimately, I picture direct democracy working quite similarly to the reddit hivemind, and I'm not convinced that's a good thing. It would likely be passionate and dynamic, but liable to go off the rails from time to time.

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#109

Post by sbov »

wiredfool wrote: post #98
jacques_chester wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pedantically, what we have in a Congress or a Parliament is trustees . They exercise but do not own the power. > It's my understanding that the reason it was created is because technically it was too difficult to allow everyone to vote on every law. It was created that way to prevent the tyranny of the majority. "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be fel…

Well, we in Washington State have some experience on these things, as does California with the initiative process. Who will write the bills? Tim Eyman, Industry Groups, Costco, and other Lobbying Groups. Who will get sponsors? Probably the same. They'll probably pay for it. The same forces that pay for lobbyists will pour into the direct democracy process, like they've taken the initiatives. What will we get from it?…

Or . E.g. here's a look at the contributions by state from California's prop 8: http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/ - about 29% of the overall funding came from out of state.

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#110

Post by One_adm12 »

Great post. I face this everyday in my job at an "old media" company. There are policies, rules and constraints in place which served some purpose at some point in time, and haven't been challenged for years. Unlearning the rules of established games is almost as important as evolving them. Everything should be questioned and challenged to find the root of the point of the rule/law/restriction and if it doesn't make sense any longer, throw it out.
Post reply on HN