6 ms·

Is it irrational? Unfortunate, perhaps, in a tragedy-of-the-commons sort-of-way (assuming that everyone shares your beliefs and goals), but who is being irratio

Is it irrational? Unfortunate, perhaps, in a tragedy-of-the-commons sort-of-way (assuming that everyone shares your beliefs and goals), but who is being irrational?

mcguire 9y ago
If you make every decision optimally but still end up driving your car off a cliff, there may be something wrong with you definition of rationality.
- V-eHGsd_ 9y ago
  I mean, maybe you're not optimizing for not driving off a cliff :)
- Bromskloss 9y ago
  That doesn't seem like an equivalent situation. I'm talking about a tragedy-of-the-commons situation, where an individual has a negligible influence over the climate, and so might rationally go ahead and instead spend his effort on something that he will actually get some benefits from.
  - Chris_Jay 9y ago
    Granted, but it would still seem rational for everyone to prioritize aligning our short- and long-term incentives so that this sort of tragedy doesn't become worse than it has to be.
  - chriswarbo 9y ago
    Individuals may be acting in their own self-interest, but civilisation is acting irrationally. One of the roles of government is to impose rules and regulations that steer individual (and corporate) self-interest in directions which are widely agreed to be in the interests of civilisation (like preventing/mitigating climate change) but which would otherwise be ignored or worsened if left to individuals or corporations.
    - Bromskloss 9y ago
      > Individuals may be acting in their own self-interest, but civilisation is acting irrationally. Yes, individuals acting rationally is just the thing. If we look closely enough at a civilisation or other group of people, it does break apart into individuals. The individuals are the ones who ultimately has the capacity to act, and has goals (a utility function) and knowledge to base their acts upon.
      - mcguire 9y ago
        Right, individuals are the point. Local optimization, no matter how well done, may not get you to a global optimum.
        Bromskloss 9y ago
        Are you sure it is a matter of local versus global optima? Isn't it rather that what you refer to as the global optimum isn't the optimum for the individual actors, and that each individual benefits from deviating from it (at the expense of everyone else)?
        mcguire 9y ago
        This is the tragedy of the commons viewed as an optimization problem. A global optimum provides benefits essentially perpetually, making it more valuable than the local optimums which are arrived at by each actor individually. (It does require extending the time though the actor's descendents.) Hence the old saw's insistence on "enlightened self interest".
  - makoConstruct 9y ago
    This is also something Yudkowsky has something interesting to say about https://arbital.com/p/logical_dt/ https://arbital.com/p/logical_dt/ Summary: LDT is a decision theory that is able to recognise that the decisions of all agents who implement LDT will be correlated. When it makes a decision it knows that it's making the decision for its entire decision-theoretic equivalence class. If it ever decided to knowingly do a thing that is "individually rational" but collectively disastrous, in cases where the personal cost of the disaster outweighs the personal benefits of defecting, then it would be malfunctioning. I put quotes around "individually rational" because, in light of LDT, CDT is not really rational. It performs worse. It doesn't win. And, personally, I don't think the old model of decisionmaking was closer to what humans intuitively consider to be sane, effective decisionmaking, I think we had to be taught to be ruthless parasites who can't keep promises, and I hope we can unlearn that now.
- dsacco 9y ago
  That doesn’t seem to be a neutrally presented analogy in good faith to the discussion. You can mount a cogent argument that various financial institutions in our culture are suboptimal for a given metric, and you can further posit that those metrics are what we should be optimizing for to achieve some normative imperative. But those aren’t arguments you made, and as stated your analogy is so hyperbolic and unsubstantiated it feels like you’re only engaging with the topic to forward an ideological disagreement. It’s not at all self-evident to me that hyper-efficient price discovery in modern capitalism is comparable to optimizing local maxima until you drive off a cliff. I’m willing to be shown why this is the case, but again, those aren’t the arguments you’ve made.

Is it irrational? Unfortunate, perhaps, in a tragedy-of-the-commons sort-of-way (assuming that everyone shares your beliefs and goals), but who is being irrational?

mcguire 9y ago

If you make every decision optimally but still end up driving your car off a cliff, there may be something wrong with you definition of rationality.

V-eHGsd_ 9y ago
I mean, maybe you're not optimizing for not driving off a cliff :)
Bromskloss 9y ago
That doesn't seem like an equivalent situation. I'm talking about a tragedy-of-the-commons situation, where an individual has a negligible influence over the climate, and so might rationally go ahead and instead spend his effort on something that he will actually get some benefits from.
- Chris_Jay 9y ago
  Granted, but it would still seem rational for everyone to prioritize aligning our short- and long-term incentives so that this sort of tragedy doesn't become worse than it has to be.
- chriswarbo 9y ago
  Individuals may be acting in their own self-interest, but civilisation is acting irrationally. One of the roles of government is to impose rules and regulations that steer individual (and corporate) self-interest in directions which are widely agreed to be in the interests of civilisation (like preventing/mitigating climate change) but which would otherwise be ignored or worsened if left to individuals or corporations.
  - Bromskloss 9y ago
    > Individuals may be acting in their own self-interest, but civilisation is acting irrationally. Yes, individuals acting rationally is just the thing. If we look closely enough at a civilisation or other group of people, it does break apart into individuals. The individuals are the ones who ultimately has the capacity to act, and has goals (a utility function) and knowledge to base their acts upon.
    - mcguire 9y ago
      Right, individuals are the point. Local optimization, no matter how well done, may not get you to a global optimum.
      - Bromskloss 9y ago
        Are you sure it is a matter of local versus global optima? Isn't it rather that what you refer to as the global optimum isn't the optimum for the individual actors, and that each individual benefits from deviating from it (at the expense of everyone else)?
        mcguire 9y ago
        This is the tragedy of the commons viewed as an optimization problem. A global optimum provides benefits essentially perpetually, making it more valuable than the local optimums which are arrived at by each actor individually. (It does require extending the time though the actor's descendents.) Hence the old saw's insistence on "enlightened self interest".
- makoConstruct 9y ago
  This is also something Yudkowsky has something interesting to say about https://arbital.com/p/logical_dt/ https://arbital.com/p/logical_dt/ Summary: LDT is a decision theory that is able to recognise that the decisions of all agents who implement LDT will be correlated. When it makes a decision it knows that it's making the decision for its entire decision-theoretic equivalence class. If it ever decided to knowingly do a thing that is "individually rational" but collectively disastrous, in cases where the personal cost of the disaster outweighs the personal benefits of defecting, then it would be malfunctioning. I put quotes around "individually rational" because, in light of LDT, CDT is not really rational. It performs worse. It doesn't win. And, personally, I don't think the old model of decisionmaking was closer to what humans intuitively consider to be sane, effective decisionmaking, I think we had to be taught to be ruthless parasites who can't keep promises, and I hope we can unlearn that now.
dsacco 9y ago
That doesn’t seem to be a neutrally presented analogy in good faith to the discussion. You can mount a cogent argument that various financial institutions in our culture are suboptimal for a given metric, and you can further posit that those metrics are what we should be optimizing for to achieve some normative imperative. But those aren’t arguments you made, and as stated your analogy is so hyperbolic and unsubstantiated it feels like you’re only engaging with the topic to forward an ideological disagreement. It’s not at all self-evident to me that hyper-efficient price discovery in modern capitalism is comparable to optimizing local maxima until you drive off a cliff. I’m willing to be shown why this is the case, but again, those aren’t the arguments you’ve made.