The "overlearning the game" problem • Hacker News Board

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#141

Post by Helianthus » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 3:26 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #140

Helianthus wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In practice, the system grants sparse populations dominion over the majority. Not so! Populism _failed_, but it wouldn't have even had a chance to represent the interests of the agrarian states if statehood were not more important than sheer weight of numbers. >There's no well-thought-out philosophical reason for this, by the way, this was just a compromise states like Virginia had to make to get states like Rhode I…

The mistake you're making is treating states as primary. States--and, more generally, federalism--are a means to an end. The purpose of government is to serve the interests of people . Rhode Island is a legal fiction delimited by imaginary lines; you and I are real people. The people who live within the imaginary lines of Rhode Island are just as important as anyone, but those million people are no more or less impor…

I'm saying it's not a mistake, it's a decision, which of course has its drawbacks and pitfalls. Hypocritical, self-serving politicians can still have understandable and even rational motivations and arguments.

Believe me, I ain't putting no fathers on a pedestal. But you seem to like putting them in a cesspit.

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#142

Post by wnight » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 8:37 PM UTC

wtracy wrote: post #129

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…

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.

As long as voting costs nothing, and the work comes from someone else, nobody is going to take it seriously.

Instead, attach the voter's name to the bill, as either yay, nay, or abstain. When their position is proven wrong, fine them to cover the damages their mistaken choice cost.

As is, voting is unjust. It leads to abominations like the draft.

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#143

Post by wnight » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 8:54 PM UTC

jacques_chester wrote: post #41

david927 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proxies are what we have today with Congress: elected representatives. 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. I'm saying: eliminate Congress. Allow people to vote directly on all bills. They can read various opinions online (no advertising allowed).

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…

> Who will write these bills? How will they be proposed? Is there a minimum number of sponsors required, if so, how many? How do bills lapse? How are they amended during discussion?

Do you think this sort of thing makes you clever? In every idea there are implementation details. What's your point?

Unless you're saying that these things will somehow be radically harder under the proposed system, and if so say how, it doesn't need saying.

> Representative democracy is a defence against majoritarianism.

No, representative democracy is often proposed as a defense for such.

We can routinely see our politicians playing to the masses so obviously if it works it's only in a round-about fashion.

Re: The "overlearning the game" problem

#144

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 3:01 PM UTC

sendos wrote: post #4

kragen wrote: post #3

Less Wrong talks about this a lot; their term for one variant of it is "superstimuli". What's the difference between your "overlearning" and "hacking"? They sound like the same thing. This phenomenon is the reason for the Wikipedia rule, "Ignore All Rules".

> What's the difference between your "overlearning" and "hacking"? They sound like the same thing. They are similar, but I think one difference between "hacking" and "overlearning" is that a hacker can learn to subvert/circumvent a system quite quickly, and usually does so in a way that breaks the rules. Overlearning usually takes longer to achieve, and is a more insidious problem because it achieves its goals withou…

[deleted]