3 ms·
> That is probably the exact opposite of what you really want. No, it really isn't. In an ideal world, the reasons behind a decision are transparent, auditable
by ori_b 9y ago
> That is probably the exact opposite of what you really want.
No, it really isn't. In an ideal world, the reasons behind a decision are transparent, auditable, understandable, and appealable. Machine learning is none of those.
- erik_seaberg 9y agoIn an ideal world, society would compensate you when they would like you to assume a risk below its market price, rather than forcing you to pretend not to notice the risk.
- joshuamorton 9y agoBut there isn't actually a risk associated with an Adolf. Its an inefficiency born out of an incorrect belief by the whole of (or at least most of) society. The correct solution is not to price in the incorrect assumption, but to not make the incorrect assumption. In other words, by offering Adolf's below-market rates, you're exploiting a market inefficiency at no additional risk. This is an ideal world as you describe it. It's capitalism at it's finest!
- dhbradshaw 9y agoThe interesting question is not whether those are good things -- they clearly are. The interesting question is their value relative to each other and, more specifically, relative to correctness. To what extent are we willing to tolerate less correct decisions if necessary in order to achieve those and other desirable properties? It seems like the answer to that question is situationally dependent.