4 ms·

The only reasons to not prefer working for a machine are a) you don't trust its value function to be just, or b) you believe it will be just, but you would rat

by flippe 10y ago

The only reasons to not prefer working for a machine are a) you don't trust its value function to be just, or b) you believe it will be just, but you would rather cheat people by taking advantage of human faults like irrational emotions and imperfect memory We can argue about a) but I can't respect position b).

jhgjklj 10y ago
> b) you believe it will be just, but you would rather cheat people by taking advantage of human faults like irrational emotions and imperfect memory This is interesting. If all men are created equal and had are grown in same environment then treating by a machine equally is just. But all men are not created equal and hence treating equally by a machine which decides their pay will be considered unjust by the lesser capable men. I am not saying it is just or unjust, just a possible thought process by an intellectually less capable men.
- quirkot 10y ago
  Great point. The whole equality vs equity you allude to debate applies here as well
allengeorge 10y ago
I don't think most people care about b), or would even consider b). It's more likely that there's a lot of circumstantial evidence, context etc. that explains someone's behavior - and it's unlikely that an unemotional decision-maker would care. Having a bad stretch because you're dealing with personal problems at home? Perhaps your pay should be docked by some percentage since you're less productive than your peers. Trying to ramp up on a technology, but you're slower than your peers? Another pay cut - after all, you're not as efficient.
- HeroOfAges 10y ago
  Having your pay docked because you're unable to work is standard operating procedure if you're an hourly worker, or if you bill a client hourly. And yes, if you are slower and less efficient than your peers, you should receive less pay. No more rewards for "looking" the part or being more "likable".
  - bluejekyll 10y ago
    What you're asking for is a pure form of meritocracy, which I think is generally a good thing but does have negatives. The problem is, how do you measure impact and performance? If you have someone on a team that spends a ton of time helping other engineers with their coding problems, their own commit rate will be lower. If you have someone who checks in a ton of code (not a great messure of ability), they may cause a ton of breakages and bugs for others, a detriment to the group overall. Meritocracies can be gamed, and any measure you decide to track, will be gamed. At some point machines will definitely be able to track all of these data points, and incorporate them into a model, but it's still only going to have a view of the world based on the data it is fed. This means that people will game it, and then you have a similar issue as today. While I agree with you in principle, the implementation will not be perfect.
quirkot 10y ago
I prefer: c) even if it's a good idea, it'll be implemented poorly and that will make my life hell d) You can't actually work for a machine because it has no animus

by flippe 10y ago

jhgjklj 10y ago

> b) you believe it will be just, but you would rather cheat people by taking advantage of human faults like irrational emotions and imperfect memory This is interesting. If all men are created equal and had are grown in same environment then treating by a machine equally is just. But all men are not created equal and hence treating equally by a machine which decides their pay will be considered unjust by the lesser capable men. I am not saying it is just or unjust, just a possible thought process by an intellectually less capable men.

quirkot 10y ago
Great point. The whole equality vs equity you allude to debate applies here as well

allengeorge 10y ago

I don't think most people care about b), or would even consider b). It's more likely that there's a lot of circumstantial evidence, context etc. that explains someone's behavior - and it's unlikely that an unemotional decision-maker would care. Having a bad stretch because you're dealing with personal problems at home? Perhaps your pay should be docked by some percentage since you're less productive than your peers. Trying to ramp up on a technology, but you're slower than your peers? Another pay cut - after all, you're not as efficient.

HeroOfAges 10y ago
Having your pay docked because you're unable to work is standard operating procedure if you're an hourly worker, or if you bill a client hourly. And yes, if you are slower and less efficient than your peers, you should receive less pay. No more rewards for "looking" the part or being more "likable".
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  What you're asking for is a pure form of meritocracy, which I think is generally a good thing but does have negatives. The problem is, how do you measure impact and performance? If you have someone on a team that spends a ton of time helping other engineers with their coding problems, their own commit rate will be lower. If you have someone who checks in a ton of code (not a great messure of ability), they may cause a ton of breakages and bugs for others, a detriment to the group overall. Meritocracies can be gamed, and any measure you decide to track, will be gamed. At some point machines will definitely be able to track all of these data points, and incorporate them into a model, but it's still only going to have a view of the world based on the data it is fed. This means that people will game it, and then you have a similar issue as today. While I agree with you in principle, the implementation will not be perfect.

quirkot 10y ago

I prefer: c) even if it's a good idea, it'll be implemented poorly and that will make my life hell d) You can't actually work for a machine because it has no animus