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

121–130 of 144 posts

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#121

Post by bluedanieru »

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…

We had something on here many months ago about a voting system basically the same as what we have now, however instead of determining the winner by who got the most votes, the winner is determined by randomly choosing a single ballot.

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#123

Post by uses »

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…

I can see it now: "And make sure to VoteFollow us at #GlennBeck. Our research team carefully picks the right votes on all the issues."

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#124

Post by david927 »

jacques_chester wrote: post #68
david927 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a quite well-studied and well-explored area; I encourage you to read more about it. Switzerland, for example, is a direct democracy.

Switzerland is no such thing. Switzerland is a federation of cantons with a patchwork of different electoral systems with some mechanisms for citizen-initiated referenda.

In other words, only some cantons in Switzerland use direct democracy. I've lived for many years in Switzerland and everyone I talked to was pretty proud to call it that; but if you want, I'll correct it: many parts of of one of the richest, best run countries in the world works as a direct democracy.

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#125

Post by david927 »

pnathan wrote: post #106
david927 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, you need to read history and learn about the success of democracies, that only third-world countries now are not democracies -- it's been that successful, and that all I'm suggesting is that instead of electing a Michelle Bachmann to vote on the laws, you can skip her and vote directly.

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#126

Post by derleth »

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…

You assume they won't lie outright, which seems like an odd assumption. In a world where some people claim no American planes crashed into buildings on September 11, 2001, I wouldn't put it past the average demagogue to pin every defeat on a conspiracy that subverted the will of the voters, who are of course all Right-Minded and pro-demagogue.

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#127

Post by david927 »

roel_v wrote: post #107
david927 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 slog…

By 'you', I mean everyone who is satisfied with how things are.

What I'm saying is there are 13,000 full-time employees of rich clients, each representing a bus-load of money, whose job it is to stop what people want if it conflicts with what their wealthy sponsors want. That system cannot stand. It is rotten to the core.

I'm telling you that it's not about us or the people on HN. Politics have been gamed and the people know it, and they will change it. The internet has revamped industry after industry; politics is next. You can call it revolution. You may think I'm crazy and extreme. But I (and others) see something disastrously broken and are willing to use modern technology to fix it.

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#128

Post by david927 »

henrikgs wrote: post #83
david927 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Direct democracy killed Socraties. No, no it did not. Direct democracy means the legislative branch doesn't use a proxy. There are still two other branches. How is this so hard to understand? Elected representatives are supposed to fully represent their constituents . There is not supposed to be a difference between the rep. and who they represent. What direct democracy says is that the proxy of a representative has…

Why is it false or elitist to assume that someone working full time on a subject is "smarter" than everyone else on that particular subject? I am pretty sure 99% of the lawyers in US would do a better job than me defending anyone in a trial. Every car mechanic in the world would do a better job than me fixing some mechanical problem in my car. Does this mean that I am dumb? No, it just means I devote my time to other…

We can have people working full-time analyzing the subject and read what their opinions are.

That's what representatives do, actually -- they have people who read the bills and give advice on what they think. I'm saying, like with so many areas, by using the internet we can skip the middle-man.

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#129

Post by wtracy »

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…

What on earth makes you think that direct democracy will eliminate the efforts of lobbyists? The money will just get redirected toward news and information outlets, because nobody will actually read the bills they are voting on.

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#130

Post by learc83 »

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…

Couldn't they just require that you must win by at least 1% or there's a runoff, and achieve the same result?
Post reply on HN