5 ms·

This. Society, wrongly in my opinion, seems to have converged on a 'do no harm' philosophy. Essentially we seek to minimize the risk of type 1 errors (approving

This. Society, wrongly in my opinion, seems to have converged on a 'do no harm' philosophy. Essentially we seek to minimize the risk of type 1 errors (approving a technology that causes harm) but in the process increase the number of type 2 errors (delaying or rejecting a technology that would have been safe). I think the reason is because those type 1 errors are visible and can be seen, so cause backlash, whereas the type 2 errors cannot be seen so easily. I do think we'd be better off balancing these two risks rather than just minimizing type 1s (of course this is hard as many type 2 risks are of the unknown unknown variety).

heymijo 10y ago
Systems and incentives within them help explain this. Society at large doesn't incentivize the type 1 errors you described. Ben Horowitz created a 2x2 to describe this.[1][2] [1] http://imgur.com/wmsy3hV http://imgur.com/wmsy3hV [2] http://a16z.com/2011/08/07/the-fine-line-between-fear-and-courage/ http://a16z.com/2011/08/07/the-fine-line-between-fear-and-co...
kevinwang 10y ago
Type one error can be worse in the long term. Such as nuclear weapons, an ai singularity, and even cigarettes or DDT to a lesser extent
- kirillkh 10y ago
  The thing is we never know whether approving X is a type 1 error or not approving it is a type 2 error. So right now we cautiously make, say, 99.9% of type 2 errors and only 0.1% of type 1 errors. We need to relax the requirements a bit, so that the split is, say, 95%/5%, where the 5% type 1 errors are minor (as in, won't cause a huge catastrophe).
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
theprotocol 10y ago
It seems to me that your reasoning comes from not caring about an increased turnover of potential effects on human lives (one such effect being death). It's quite Mendelian an attitude, and frankly I fear people who share your view - advancement at the cost of "breaking a few eggs" - a line not unlike what you'd hear from an evil villain in a movie, or, sadly, 2017 hackernews.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  Except lots of eggs get broken today as a matter of course. If a technology saves lives, losing them to get it quicker might be a matter of balance.
  - theprotocol 10y ago
    Not being able to help someone is ethically superior to risking killing someone in order to help someone else. You're not the one who gave the former cancer, but you are the one who imperiled the latter.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      Isn't that just self concern? You can't be linked personally as the cause of negative consequence, so you want to remain divorced from it. In the extreme, a small girl was run over in china, and no one stopped to help. Can they be blamed? They were not the cause...
      - theprotocol 10y ago
        It's not self concern, it's called ethics. It's not about "being linked to the action," it's simply that one situation involves someone going out of their way to imperil people, and that is simply unethical behavior. It's not about me, it's about anyone who does that. It's an ethical principle, not a personal liability. To put it another way, accidents are morally superior to murder. Whereas the other situation, where one has cancer - and you're sadly incapable of helping them - involves no moral compromise. Nobody gave the person cancer. Your intention is to help the person, but you can't. It's tragic, but comparing the situations, only one of them has foul play. If you think that's self concern, then you're basically resorting to "all good behavior is ultimately selfish anyway" which, like moral relativism, is a slippery slope which removes any kind of standard. So far in this thread we've seen: - The end justifies the means - People are going to die anyway, may as well cause a shift (read: increase) in that number - All good behavior is ultimately self serving I wonder what contortion we'll see next.
smoyer 10y ago
I tend to agree with you, but you should think about what that harm might be. Many genetic defects that result in miscarriage also result in severe problems for the child if they're carried to term. If we're going to fix genetic issues to allow a healthy birth, it's only fair (to the baby and parents) that we also provide that baby with a healthy life.

heymijo 10y ago

Systems and incentives within them help explain this. Society at large doesn't incentivize the type 1 errors you described. Ben Horowitz created a 2x2 to describe this.[1][2] [1] http://imgur.com/wmsy3hV http://imgur.com/wmsy3hV [2] http://a16z.com/2011/08/07/the-fine-line-between-fear-and-courage/ http://a16z.com/2011/08/07/the-fine-line-between-fear-and-co...

kevinwang 10y ago

Type one error can be worse in the long term. Such as nuclear weapons, an ai singularity, and even cigarettes or DDT to a lesser extent

kirillkh 10y ago
The thing is we never know whether approving X is a type 1 error or not approving it is a type 2 error. So right now we cautiously make, say, 99.9% of type 2 errors and only 0.1% of type 1 errors. We need to relax the requirements a bit, so that the split is, say, 95%/5%, where the 5% type 1 errors are minor (as in, won't cause a huge catastrophe).

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

theprotocol 10y ago

It seems to me that your reasoning comes from not caring about an increased turnover of potential effects on human lives (one such effect being death). It's quite Mendelian an attitude, and frankly I fear people who share your view - advancement at the cost of "breaking a few eggs" - a line not unlike what you'd hear from an evil villain in a movie, or, sadly, 2017 hackernews.

Chris2048 10y ago
Except lots of eggs get broken today as a matter of course. If a technology saves lives, losing them to get it quicker might be a matter of balance.
- theprotocol 10y ago
  Not being able to help someone is ethically superior to risking killing someone in order to help someone else. You're not the one who gave the former cancer, but you are the one who imperiled the latter.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    Isn't that just self concern? You can't be linked personally as the cause of negative consequence, so you want to remain divorced from it. In the extreme, a small girl was run over in china, and no one stopped to help. Can they be blamed? They were not the cause...
    - theprotocol 10y ago
      It's not self concern, it's called ethics. It's not about "being linked to the action," it's simply that one situation involves someone going out of their way to imperil people, and that is simply unethical behavior. It's not about me, it's about anyone who does that. It's an ethical principle, not a personal liability. To put it another way, accidents are morally superior to murder. Whereas the other situation, where one has cancer - and you're sadly incapable of helping them - involves no moral compromise. Nobody gave the person cancer. Your intention is to help the person, but you can't. It's tragic, but comparing the situations, only one of them has foul play. If you think that's self concern, then you're basically resorting to "all good behavior is ultimately selfish anyway" which, like moral relativism, is a slippery slope which removes any kind of standard. So far in this thread we've seen: - The end justifies the means - People are going to die anyway, may as well cause a shift (read: increase) in that number - All good behavior is ultimately self serving I wonder what contortion we'll see next.

smoyer 10y ago

I tend to agree with you, but you should think about what that harm might be. Many genetic defects that result in miscarriage also result in severe problems for the child if they're carried to term. If we're going to fix genetic issues to allow a healthy birth, it's only fair (to the baby and parents) that we also provide that baby with a healthy life.