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

We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

worksinprogress.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#81

Post by whatshisface »

mistermann wrote: post #61
whatshisface wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody uses all available information, whoever did would probably start by collecting every millennium prize.

True, but even execution with literally zero unforced errors with the information one does have is something that can be pursued. Or can it? Is it even possible or are humans so fundamentally flawed they they inevitably fail on day one? Pointing to monks is a standard example, but they tend to isolate themselves from difficult environments. The laws of physics don't stop us, but something does .

If I ask you to solve a difficult puzzle in one second, is your failure an unforced error?

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#82

Post by rawgabbit »

Even the Business Roundtable doesn't follow the "rational model". In 2019, the Business Roundtable, which consists of America's largest companies, said corporations should focus not only on making profits, but to:

  - Delivering value to our customers.
  - Investing in our employees.
  - Dealing fairly and ethically with our suppliers.
  - Supporting the communities in which we work. 
  - Generating long-term value for shareholders.
https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redef...

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#83

Post by toddh »

jjk166 wrote: post #23

The rational actor model assumes that a person will behave optimally - using all information available to make and carry out the best decision possible for their goals. I strongly suspect that a better model is that people instead of optimizing their outcomes instead optimize the ease of decision making while still getting an acceptable course of action. Most of our biases serve to either allow us to make decisions q…

The deeper problem is modeling goal setting. We know people will hurt themselves and to punish others and economics is stuck at thinking people only wish to maximize value. People are much more complex than that.

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#84

Post by mistermann »

whatshisface wrote: post #81
mistermann wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but even execution with literally zero unforced errors with the information one does have is something that can be pursued. Or can it? Is it even possible or are humans so fundamentally flawed they they inevitably fail on day one? Pointing to monks is a standard example, but they tend to isolate themselves from difficult environments. The laws of physics don't stop us, but something does .

If I ask you to solve a difficult puzzle in one second, is your failure an unforced error?

I wouldn't say so... omnipotence is something else entirely.

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#85

Post by snovv_crash »

JoshCole wrote: post #32
snovv_crash wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about continuous space solutions is that they are typically differentiable, which means you can use a gradient descent or LM optimization rather than needing to fully explore the solution space. Typically there are large regions which are heuristically excludable, which is what you are getting at I think, but even an unbiased sampling plus gradient descent often makes problems much more tractable than discr…

The type of learning problem where I agree with your point is in something like learning how to classify hand written digits. My point about the continuous nature being unsearchable in practice is about recursive forms - if I choose this policy, my opponent will choose to react to the fact that I had that policy. In your learning problem where thing were made tractable by differentiation you have something like an el…

I get what you're saying about recursive adversarial problems and their fractal nature, but this is exactly what GANs do to great success, despite the fact that it's hard. Yes, they have to train a lot slower, but learning general strategies and patterns in opponent behaviour still works.

Your password example on the other hand is a discrete, non-differentiable example. If it was differentiable - for example instead of a true/false you got an edit distance to the real password, then passwords would be trivial to crack.

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#86

Post by snovv_crash »

whimsicalism wrote: post #33
snovv_crash wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about continuous space solutions is that they are typically differentiable, which means you can use a gradient descent or LM optimization rather than needing to fully explore the solution space. Typically there are large regions which are heuristically excludable, which is what you are getting at I think, but even an unbiased sampling plus gradient descent often makes problems much more tractable than discr…

Only if the local optima are good.

That's a matter of designing a good cost function.

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#87

Post by solarmist »

whatshisface wrote: post #80
darkerside wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you realize this is coming off a pedantic, but everybody realizes what you are getting at. It's just not useful or relevant. Define information being available as what people are able to load up into working memory to make the decision. You can maximize with those factors easily.

I can "load up" the axioms of set theory plus the necessary definitions into working memory, but I'm still not claiming any millennium prizes. I do not think that a model of a person that is only limited by information would be anything close to a person that is limited by computational ability.

Definitions != mental model

The representation isn’t the model and conflating the two makes it hard to give a meaningful response to your comments.

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#88

Post by elevaet »

mstipetic wrote: post #60
elevaet wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this stated before, is this true? Source?

Here’s gallup https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creati...

That's astounding and shocking. I think I've seen this before and it's so surprising that my mind doesnt accept it as true. But it is apparently.

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#89

Post by m4nu3l »

Nursie wrote: post #78
m4nu3l wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not arguing for no Government. I'm arguing against Government intervention in the economy. I disagree on many points though (I have seen the Vox article before - I don't have much respect for Vox as it is very biased, so I tend to ignore it, just like The Guardian or Fox News). "Because the government isn't, (or at least shouldn't be) beholden to short term interests in the same way those other classes are". A Go…

Ugh, ancap bullshit. Get out of your bubble. > What's the point for investor to make money and then die of pollution or die in a fire. Because then they have the money and you don't. That's all there is to it. Look at the world aroudn you and tell me how corporate greed isn't ruining it. Actually don't tell me, your philosophy is bankrupt.

"Ugh, ancap bullshit. Get out of your bubble."

Did you miss I wrote I don't know it would work. Not an argument anyway? I don't know if you know the version I'm talking about. It doesn't even assume the non aggression principle.

"Because then they have the money and you don't".

Money can't buy you a planet (yet) and money only have value in a functioning economy.

"Look at the world aroudn you and tell me how corporate greed isn't ruining it" Most very rich people are actually donating most of their time to fix what they think are the worst problems

"Actually don't tell me, your philosophy is bankrupt"

Ad hominem, I belive?

Re: We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model

#90

Post by Nursie »

m4nu3l wrote: post #89
Nursie wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, ancap bullshit. Get out of your bubble. > What's the point for investor to make money and then die of pollution or die in a fire. Because then they have the money and you don't. That's all there is to it. Look at the world aroudn you and tell me how corporate greed isn't ruining it. Actually don't tell me, your philosophy is bankrupt.

"Ugh, ancap bullshit. Get out of your bubble." Did you miss I wrote I don't know it would work. Not an argument anyway? I don't know if you know the version I'm talking about. It doesn't even assume the non aggression principle. "Because then they have the money and you don't". Money can't buy you a planet (yet) and money only have value in a functioning economy. "Look at the world aroudn you and tell me how corporat…

> Money can't buy you a planet (yet) and money only have value in a functioning economy.

So? Look at the people around the world who are gleefully destroying everything to turn a buck.

You're unbelievably naive.

Post reply on HN