Live data from Hacker News

The Myth of the Objective

opowell.com

11–20 of 65 posts

Re: The Myth of the Objective

#11

The article is terrible - it is effectively saying "being objective" is not good for achieving that "objective". This is complete non-sense without untangling the epistemic roots for said words, the author may have had. It's apparent that it's actually saying that being too "greedy" (i.e too low a horizon) can be bad for achieving an objective. This is well known to both Control theorists, RL practitioners, and many…

The video referenced by the article is actually very intriguing and well done.

It's basically just talking about the incredible power of broadly pursuing novelty and interestingness, as opposed to a specific goal.

Re: The Myth of the Objective

#12

I appreciate the work and research that went into this. However, I can't help but feel as if some of these statements aren't very concretely true, or untrue. For example, ok, if I get tunnel vision and just focus on one objective, I might lose sight of other paths. I can see what you mean, but let's put that into practice. "If you focus on profit, you might lose focus on innovation." Ok, but if I focus solely on inno…

i felt the title was too over-reaching than one of the actual conclusions "Objectives can, ironically, be obstacles to innovation and creativity.".

key word for me is *can. Objectives are pretty good in some cases, but not all. Or perhaps, when they ran their machine learning, they needed to first run some unsupervised learning =)

Re: The Myth of the Objective

#13
It makes sense to explore outside the box if your problem can't be found in a very limited search space. However the statement

> Many natural processes don’t appear to be objective based. Natural evolution and human innovation are cases in point.

Is not correct. Evolution is highly objective based and micro-incremental.

Re: The Myth of the Objective

#14
post #4

> When you have one eye on the goal, you only have one eye on the path. > Objectives can, ironically, be obstacles to innovation and creativity. This, like much of the Zen worldview, is self-refuting. If objectives can be obstacles that leave me with only one eye on the path, then the new objective is just to focus on "the path" of innovation and creativity. My objective may have changed , but I still have an objecti…

I believe you missed the point of the Zen introduction. Object vs. Subject.

Re: The Myth of the Objective

#15
I've read most of the book and I am confused by the fact that it completely skips artificial evolution (especially obvious in the domestication of cats and dogs).

Re: The Myth of the Objective

#17

The article is terrible - it is effectively saying "being objective" is not good for achieving that "objective". This is complete non-sense without untangling the epistemic roots for said words, the author may have had. It's apparent that it's actually saying that being too "greedy" (i.e too low a horizon) can be bad for achieving an objective. This is well known to both Control theorists, RL practitioners, and many…

The video referenced by the article is actually very intriguing and well done. It's basically just talking about the incredible power of broadly pursuing novelty and interestingness, as opposed to a specific goal.

AIUI, it's about having an objective function which measures something other than the delta to a pre-defined goal, but rather a higher-level more abstract function.

Another phrase for it would be "unknown unknowns": if your success criteria are too focused, you'll miss out on solutions that you couldn't conceive of before they're discovered. The "Objective" criticised in this article is like a "known unknown".

Re: The Myth of the Objective

#18

The article is terrible - it is effectively saying "being objective" is not good for achieving that "objective". This is complete non-sense without untangling the epistemic roots for said words, the author may have had. It's apparent that it's actually saying that being too "greedy" (i.e too low a horizon) can be bad for achieving an objective. This is well known to both Control theorists, RL practitioners, and many…

I'm confused, is it about "objective" as in the adjective, or about "objective" as "goal"? Perhaps my English is not good enough but I fail to see the first in the text.

Re: The Myth of the Objective

#19

The article is terrible - it is effectively saying "being objective" is not good for achieving that "objective". This is complete non-sense without untangling the epistemic roots for said words, the author may have had. It's apparent that it's actually saying that being too "greedy" (i.e too low a horizon) can be bad for achieving an objective. This is well known to both Control theorists, RL practitioners, and many…

> This is complete non-sense without untangling the epistemic roots for said words, the author may have had.

Ah, but you see when Plato was saying pharmakon (drug, poison) what he actually meant was pharmakos (scapegoat); since he didn't actually say pharmakos, by its absence that must be the true meaning!

Re: The Myth of the Objective

#20

The article is terrible - it is effectively saying "being objective" is not good for achieving that "objective". This is complete non-sense without untangling the epistemic roots for said words, the author may have had. It's apparent that it's actually saying that being too "greedy" (i.e too low a horizon) can be bad for achieving an objective. This is well known to both Control theorists, RL practitioners, and many…

Have you read or watched what the picbreeder author is actually about? It's not about a greater horizon. It's that you only get "valuable results" by using a heuristic that only looks at the very next steps, and completely ignoring any goals that would lie further ahead. You could say that he's promoting a greedy search with very broad success parameters.

An example: You plan to be a millionaire, and you currently have nothing in the bank. How do you get there? Any plan would most probably not work, if executed in a rigid manner (or we would all look up the recipe on the internet and be millionaires). You end up trying all kinds of jobs, investments, take opportunities when they arise, etc.. and finally you realize that you probably will not ever make it. Or you get lucky and make your million - who knows. Picbreeder showed that it's quite rare to hit the very desired result you wanted.

However, if you were more flexible regarding your goal, at every step, then you might take the job that agrees the most with you, meet a lot of great people, travel if you are able, start a family.. and end up without a million in the bank but with a satisfying life situation. With pic breeder, certain shapes and beautiful pictures emerged that were not intended or planned from the start. The algorithm went along with whatever was there, and optimized on that.

Looking at the millionaire example again - if you already had 500k, then doubling that might not be that hard (?), or not that many steps away. People keep saying that the more money you have, the easier it is to earn - think opportunities like buying an apartment in a firesale and reselling it for 1.5 as much.

For me, it's a very counter intuitive way of looking at things. It goes very deep against the wanting of goals or things in our current society. OTOH, it somehow makes sense that things work this way, because every step in our step-by-step plans is SO dependent on things beyond our control. Agile development methods remind me of this very much: Try telling a customer not familiar with agile that the software she orders might look completely different than she imagines it right now - most will think you are crazy or want to cheat them. But you might recognize problems in every sprint, and adapt the end goal accordingly.

Post reply on HN