3 ms·

Theranos have innovated themselves to oblivion. We must learn that there's a definite line between innovating and blatantly generating noise for the sake of new

Theranos have innovated themselves to oblivion. We must learn that there's a definite line between innovating and blatantly generating noise for the sake of new noise (also supported by inverstors).

bkohlmann 9y ago
Societal utility is a weighted average. Any worthwhile process will have positive and negative outcomes. Those that endure will provide greater upside than downside. I believe that a process where any idea is given consideration is preferable to one in which ideas are suppressed. We need all the "bad" ideas to discover the "good" ones.
- heavenlyblue 9y ago
  A process where any idea is always given consideration is naturally highly vulnerable to sybil attacks. For example, there's a reason why once upon a time we had agreed (as a society) to never accept any new potents for perpetual motion machines - because the only ideas that were left are the bad ones, and we can prove it. Now if there comes a time in history when the laws of physics suddenly discover something new - we may re-approach our decision. But I don't think many educated people believe it's going to happen anytime soon.
  - bkohlmann 9y ago
    That's the point though - we only know that perpetual motion machines are not yet possible because nearly every testable idea we've come up yields nothing. Our system is better for allowing, and dismissing, bad ideas than never allowing them at all.
    - mrgordon 9y ago
      I'm not sure where you're going with this. Facebook allowed these terrible ideas to proliferate which is why we have lost our privacy and rights to "subtle language" and "questionable policies." Now people are acting like the choice is between allowing these ideas or not allowing them. In reality, its much more nuanced. It turns out a lot of people think the ideas are horrible, offensive, and immoral. Thus Facebook can continue to embrace these ideas and lose employees and public respect, or they can not embrace these ideas and hopefully recover some reputation. It isn't about "disallowing" these ideas. Its about not building a business around screwing people over if you don't want to be known for screwing people over. Something can be allowed without memos from top ranking managers dictating that this is the way the business runs (and will run in the future in China)
- bkohlmann 9y ago
  I'm perplexed by the downvotes. So I can refine my understanding, I'd love to know where I'm thinking incorrectly. Here is what I think are the possible counters to what I proposed: 1) Societal utility is NOT a weighted average - namely, an acceptable outcome will only have positive externalities. 2) Processes in which ideas are suppressed are in general preferable to those in which ideas can be unconstrained 3) We can discover the full set of "good" ideas without being exposed to "bad" ideas Where else is the disagreement coming from? What are your insights that lead you to reject what I've proposed?
epmaybe 9y ago
This seems incorrect because as far as I know Theranos didn't innovate. Their machines didn't work, did they?
- heavenlyblue 9y ago
  How do you tell Theranos from not-Theranos before you'd invested a bunch of money in them? As far as we know there were quite a few large players in the industry who were uninterested in Theranos - which means they have rejected their ideas before the ideas came into living.
BlackFingolfin 9y ago
Innovated? More like blatantly lied and committed fraud, I'd say
- heavenlyblue 9y ago
  So you'd agree with the fact that sometimes calling someone on their bullshit before giving them money is a viable strategy? I had to put "innovated" in quotation marks - I meant it in a symbolic way: "innovation is what Theranos were selling to their investors and then they either realised they could not deliver or they have blatantly lied from the beginning".

Theranos have innovated themselves to oblivion. We must learn that there's a definite line between innovating and blatantly generating noise for the sake of new noise (also supported by inverstors).

bkohlmann 9y ago

Societal utility is a weighted average. Any worthwhile process will have positive and negative outcomes. Those that endure will provide greater upside than downside. I believe that a process where any idea is given consideration is preferable to one in which ideas are suppressed. We need all the "bad" ideas to discover the "good" ones.

heavenlyblue 9y ago
A process where any idea is always given consideration is naturally highly vulnerable to sybil attacks. For example, there's a reason why once upon a time we had agreed (as a society) to never accept any new potents for perpetual motion machines - because the only ideas that were left are the bad ones, and we can prove it. Now if there comes a time in history when the laws of physics suddenly discover something new - we may re-approach our decision. But I don't think many educated people believe it's going to happen anytime soon.
- bkohlmann 9y ago
  That's the point though - we only know that perpetual motion machines are not yet possible because nearly every testable idea we've come up yields nothing. Our system is better for allowing, and dismissing, bad ideas than never allowing them at all.
  - mrgordon 9y ago
    I'm not sure where you're going with this. Facebook allowed these terrible ideas to proliferate which is why we have lost our privacy and rights to "subtle language" and "questionable policies." Now people are acting like the choice is between allowing these ideas or not allowing them. In reality, its much more nuanced. It turns out a lot of people think the ideas are horrible, offensive, and immoral. Thus Facebook can continue to embrace these ideas and lose employees and public respect, or they can not embrace these ideas and hopefully recover some reputation. It isn't about "disallowing" these ideas. Its about not building a business around screwing people over if you don't want to be known for screwing people over. Something can be allowed without memos from top ranking managers dictating that this is the way the business runs (and will run in the future in China)
bkohlmann 9y ago
I'm perplexed by the downvotes. So I can refine my understanding, I'd love to know where I'm thinking incorrectly. Here is what I think are the possible counters to what I proposed: 1) Societal utility is NOT a weighted average - namely, an acceptable outcome will only have positive externalities. 2) Processes in which ideas are suppressed are in general preferable to those in which ideas can be unconstrained 3) We can discover the full set of "good" ideas without being exposed to "bad" ideas Where else is the disagreement coming from? What are your insights that lead you to reject what I've proposed?

epmaybe 9y ago

This seems incorrect because as far as I know Theranos didn't innovate. Their machines didn't work, did they?

heavenlyblue 9y ago
How do you tell Theranos from not-Theranos before you'd invested a bunch of money in them? As far as we know there were quite a few large players in the industry who were uninterested in Theranos - which means they have rejected their ideas before the ideas came into living.

BlackFingolfin 9y ago

Innovated? More like blatantly lied and committed fraud, I'd say

heavenlyblue 9y ago
So you'd agree with the fact that sometimes calling someone on their bullshit before giving them money is a viable strategy? I had to put "innovated" in quotation marks - I meant it in a symbolic way: "innovation is what Theranos were selling to their investors and then they either realised they could not deliver or they have blatantly lied from the beginning".