7 ms·

So far, in this brief comment and a brief comment above, you've mentioned Goodhart's law, the McNamara fallacy, and the Munchhausen trilemma. I know nothing of

So far, in this brief comment and a brief comment above, you've mentioned Goodhart's law, the McNamara fallacy, and the Munchhausen trilemma. I know nothing of any of these. I think that you would communicate better if you avoided such references. I'd even venture to suggest that your internal thoughts might be improved by not shoving arguments into such pre-defined categories.

ukj 6y ago
I like terseness. Just because you haven't heard of something it doesn't preclude it from being a well-indexed idea in human folklore. Google is your friend.
- Iv 6y ago
  Goodhart's law/McNamara fallacy: when you put value in a measure, you create incentives to trick it. Here is aa equivalent statement, as terse and clearer, than the comment you made above.
  - ukj 6y ago
    So, would that same reasoning apply to putting value in human lives? Is that an incentive to trick the measurement?
    - Iv 6y ago
      Not really. I am proposing a theoretical solution to a philosophical problem. You are the one jumping to imagining how it could be implemented in a biased way.
      - ukj 6y ago
        I am not doing any of that. I am just using your own argument against you.
        Iv 6y ago
        You are misconstructing my argument to create an artificial contradiction. Talk about an exercise in futility. If you see a flaw, please point it clearly.
radford-neal 6y ago
I think you overestimate the amount of effort people are willing to go to in order to decipher a cryptic comment by someone called "ukj". Seriously. I'm trying to help you here. At present, you're just wasting your time.
- ukj 6y ago
  Medice, cura te ipsum.