3 ms·
Different, but not better. The incentives to game the algo remain. People adapt to the environment.
by jonathankoren 5y ago
Different, but not better.
The incentives to game the algo remain. People adapt to the environment.
- kilburn 5y agoThat's why mechanism design [1] exists as a field of study. The whole idea of that field is to provide the proper incentives to steer the participants towards your objective. Yes, considering they will try to "game" the system however they can. I'm pretty sure google could do strictly better (i.e.: better in all reasonable accounts) than they do now if they focused on the users' experience instead of revenue for a couple terms. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_design
- amelius 5y ago> The incentives to game the algo remain. People adapt to the environment. Perhaps it could work if the algorithm changed its algorithm all the time.
- jonathankoren 5y agoYou don’t think Google does this already?
- wyclif 5y agoPaul Graham says Google doesn't want to follow anybody down that road (human intervention in search). But ISTM the problem is that even though they don't, they can just throw a giant pile of money at it if they needed to crush a competitor. Also, VC will refuse to invest in anybody doing it because Google.
- jonathankoren 5y agoPaulG doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
- vintermann 5y agoI disagree, he's a pretty good guide to how VCs think, though not always in the ways he wants.