4 ms·

I'm using formalism as I defined it in my comment, but my thinking is strongly influenced by Moldbug. With high probability I'll defend his conclusions. https:

I'm using formalism as I defined it in my comment, but my thinking is strongly influenced by Moldbug. With high probability I'll defend his conclusions. https://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formalist-manifesto-originally-posted.html https://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formal... I'm saying that I consider it obvious that we don't live in a formalist world, but I don't think everyone agrees. As evidence that "we" refers to more than just me, consider this interaction with sp332 in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12235207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12235207 He first claims that equal treatment must result in equal outcomes, but immediately retreats from that when I point out that if he's right, algorithms are no threat. While not always accurate, I think the actual behavior of the world is usually a better starting point in determining what "power" is striving for than listening to its consciously crafted claims. I agree with this. That's how I infer that, for example, power wants equal outcomes rather than equal treatment - virtually every action they take favors the former. I think opaque algorithms are, fundamentally, just ways of automating our thinking. We need to understand why opaque algorithms converge and then accept their conclusions. Interpretability is great, but it turns out that many things in the world simply do not have a simple human interpretation. I think it's truly a luddite idea that all decisions should be understandable to humans. If a computer can do a demonstrably better job, why should we insist that the computer be brought down to our level? Do you maybe mean "they did gloss over" (made it superficially lustrous by omitting essential details) or maybe that "didn't gloss" (failed to define their terms as with a glossary)? In my blog post I glossed over the statistical test. I ran linear regression on synthetic data to show the directional results of various possible worlds; e.g., a world where an input is biased, a world where an input is unbiased, etc. But I didn't actually run a hypothesis test to determine significance. ProPublica did, they just ignored the conclusion when they didn't like it. And yes, as my HN profile says, I am also the person behind chrisstucchio.com. I figured listing it there was disclosure enough.

nkurz 10y ago
Thanks for your patient response. That's how I infer that, for example, power wants equal outcomes rather than equal treatment - virtually every action they take favors the former. That's arguably true regarding the apparent intent of the interventions in higher education in the US, but what about the actual outcomes? While we probably can't do a controlled experiment, assume multiple versions of you of different seses, races, and economic backgrounds, but starting life with equal "merit" on some scale. How would you price the options on the economic future of each "you"? Would an objective third party ever pay more at birth for a share of the lifetime wages of the "you" who is the apparent beneficiary of the government policies? Regardless of the apparent intent of the government to tilt the scales in favor of the historically disadvantaged, I think I'd always be betting on the "you" that looks, talks, and acts like the children of the politicians in power. I'd conclude from this that "power" does not actually prefer equal outcomes, and but that there are benefits from the appearance of preferring equal opportunity without actually taking actions that make it happen. I find this more compelling than assuming that "power" really does strive for equal outcomes but is too weak to achieve them, although I can't actually eliminate this possibility. He first claims that equal treatment must result in equal outcomes, but immediately retreats from that when I point out that if he's right, algorithms are no threat. I also disagree with his logic, but I suspect you are jumping to an incorrect conclusion when you attempt to explain the mental process he's using. I think he is probably using a different definition of "merits" than you are. You are looking at the "finished" individual (the product of their upbringing, environment, education) whereas he seems to be reserving "merits" to describe the "blank slate" prior to these. I find your argument more compelling, but I don't think you are correctly characterizing his argument.

nkurz 10y ago

Thanks for your patient response. That's how I infer that, for example, power wants equal outcomes rather than equal treatment - virtually every action they take favors the former. That's arguably true regarding the apparent intent of the interventions in higher education in the US, but what about the actual outcomes? While we probably can't do a controlled experiment, assume multiple versions of you of different seses, races, and economic backgrounds, but starting life with equal "merit" on some scale. How would you price the options on the economic future of each "you"? Would an objective third party ever pay more at birth for a share of the lifetime wages of the "you" who is the apparent beneficiary of the government policies? Regardless of the apparent intent of the government to tilt the scales in favor of the historically disadvantaged, I think I'd always be betting on the "you" that looks, talks, and acts like the children of the politicians in power. I'd conclude from this that "power" does not actually prefer equal outcomes, and but that there are benefits from the appearance of preferring equal opportunity without actually taking actions that make it happen. I find this more compelling than assuming that "power" really does strive for equal outcomes but is too weak to achieve them, although I can't actually eliminate this possibility. He first claims that equal treatment must result in equal outcomes, but immediately retreats from that when I point out that if he's right, algorithms are no threat. I also disagree with his logic, but I suspect you are jumping to an incorrect conclusion when you attempt to explain the mental process he's using. I think he is probably using a different definition of "merits" than you are. You are looking at the "finished" individual (the product of their upbringing, environment, education) whereas he seems to be reserving "merits" to describe the "blank slate" prior to these. I find your argument more compelling, but I don't think you are correctly characterizing his argument.