5 ms·

The way this is phrased, I expected to learn there was some benefit to a low amount of fraud, as such. There is not. There is a benefit to a high amount of trus

The way this is phrased, I expected to learn there was some benefit to a low amount of fraud, as such. There is not. There is a benefit to a high amount of trust, which necessitates accepting some amount of fraud.

chongli 4y ago
We don’t need there to be a benefit to a low amount of fraud to optimize for it. Optimization is a purely mathematical exercise [1]. Once we construct the problem with a chosen set of constraints then we apply mathematical techniques to solve it. Of course, many types of optimization problems (especially non-linear or non-convex) can be extremely difficult to solve optimally without relaxing some constraints or settling for approximations to the optimal solution. But, besides that, the task of interpreting the results and of potentially selecting new constraints or even a new objective function is a separate matter. Perhaps we should be seeking to maximize trust rather than minimize fraud in society. But then we have to ask ourselves: “what would that look like?” [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_optimization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_optimization
- auggierose 4y ago
  There does not need to be a set of constraints for optimisation to be defined. You can talk about optimisation on an unconstrained domain, for example all of ℝ⨯ℝ. But there DOES need to be a measure function that measures what you are optimising for. The benefit of fraud would be one such function you could optimise for, and that seems to be what GP is after. The pure amount of fraud is a different one, which seems to be what you are interested in.
8note 4y ago
Even without trust, you will reach an optimal amount because preventing fraud tends to become more expensive than the fraud itself, once you cover the simple and easy cases
bdw5204 4y ago
The optimal amount of crime in a society is non-zero because a society with zero crime would be a dystopian police state where innocent people sometimes get caught up in the justice system's net to make sure it catches all of the criminals. The classic principle of Anglosphere common law is that its better to let 10 criminals get away with it than to convict 1 innocent person. The same idea applies to fraud because overzealous fraud prevention causes problems for legitimate users whose actions incorrectly get detected as possible fraud. The benefit to tolerating a low amount of fraud is that your product won't be hostile to your legitimate users. The benefit to tolerating a low amount of crime is that you will live in a free society rather than a dystopian tyranny. Freedom is good and it is worth giving up quite a bit of safety for the sake of being free.
- Infernal 4y ago
  > The optimal amount of crime in a society is non-zero because a society with zero crime would be a dystopian police state where innocent people sometimes get caught up in the justice system's net to make sure it catches all of the criminals. At this point you're just playing with the definition of crime. I would argue that it is criminal to deprive an innocent person of their freedom, and challenge that your proposed scenario is actually "zero crime". Secondly, you talk of catching "all of the criminals". In a "zero crime" environment there are no criminals - by definition if there is a criminal, then a crime has been committed at some point. All that said I agree with your larger point - the cost of freedom is that people are not constrained before the fact from committing crime, and that's a good thing on the whole.
  - throwaway98797 4y ago
    i hope you’re trolling do you see how with the framing your proposing it’s extremely difficult to reason? might even be impossible.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  I’d argue that the optimal amount of crime is zero but the optimal amount of possibility of crime should be non-zero. That’s a necessary escape hatch out of a police state or authoritarian government. After all, the resistance against the Nazis was technically criminal at that time, even though now we’d all agree it was a good thing it occurred anyway. It is especially important nowadays because unlike back then where technology was limited and surveilling 100% of the population was impossible, it is very much possible today and is already being done in certain places such as China.
derekzhouzhen 4y ago
The benefit to a low level of fraud is that people are still looking out for fraud, so the society is more robust. If there was no fraud, and someone just invent fraud (it will happen), the damage could be devastating.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  they would have to be Moriarty level like in their inventiveness, most people start low and then expand their inventiveness with experience, the low early frauds would establish the new invention in the society. Also The invention of Lying: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1058017/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1058017/

chongli 4y ago

We don’t need there to be a benefit to a low amount of fraud to optimize for it. Optimization is a purely mathematical exercise [1]. Once we construct the problem with a chosen set of constraints then we apply mathematical techniques to solve it. Of course, many types of optimization problems (especially non-linear or non-convex) can be extremely difficult to solve optimally without relaxing some constraints or settling for approximations to the optimal solution. But, besides that, the task of interpreting the results and of potentially selecting new constraints or even a new objective function is a separate matter. Perhaps we should be seeking to maximize trust rather than minimize fraud in society. But then we have to ask ourselves: “what would that look like?” [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_optimization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_optimization

auggierose 4y ago
There does not need to be a set of constraints for optimisation to be defined. You can talk about optimisation on an unconstrained domain, for example all of ℝ⨯ℝ. But there DOES need to be a measure function that measures what you are optimising for. The benefit of fraud would be one such function you could optimise for, and that seems to be what GP is after. The pure amount of fraud is a different one, which seems to be what you are interested in.

8note 4y ago

Even without trust, you will reach an optimal amount because preventing fraud tends to become more expensive than the fraud itself, once you cover the simple and easy cases

bdw5204 4y ago

The optimal amount of crime in a society is non-zero because a society with zero crime would be a dystopian police state where innocent people sometimes get caught up in the justice system's net to make sure it catches all of the criminals. The classic principle of Anglosphere common law is that its better to let 10 criminals get away with it than to convict 1 innocent person. The same idea applies to fraud because overzealous fraud prevention causes problems for legitimate users whose actions incorrectly get detected as possible fraud. The benefit to tolerating a low amount of fraud is that your product won't be hostile to your legitimate users. The benefit to tolerating a low amount of crime is that you will live in a free society rather than a dystopian tyranny. Freedom is good and it is worth giving up quite a bit of safety for the sake of being free.

Infernal 4y ago
> The optimal amount of crime in a society is non-zero because a society with zero crime would be a dystopian police state where innocent people sometimes get caught up in the justice system's net to make sure it catches all of the criminals. At this point you're just playing with the definition of crime. I would argue that it is criminal to deprive an innocent person of their freedom, and challenge that your proposed scenario is actually "zero crime". Secondly, you talk of catching "all of the criminals". In a "zero crime" environment there are no criminals - by definition if there is a criminal, then a crime has been committed at some point. All that said I agree with your larger point - the cost of freedom is that people are not constrained before the fact from committing crime, and that's a good thing on the whole.
- throwaway98797 4y ago
  i hope you’re trolling do you see how with the framing your proposing it’s extremely difficult to reason? might even be impossible.
Nextgrid 4y ago
I’d argue that the optimal amount of crime is zero but the optimal amount of possibility of crime should be non-zero. That’s a necessary escape hatch out of a police state or authoritarian government. After all, the resistance against the Nazis was technically criminal at that time, even though now we’d all agree it was a good thing it occurred anyway. It is especially important nowadays because unlike back then where technology was limited and surveilling 100% of the population was impossible, it is very much possible today and is already being done in certain places such as China.

derekzhouzhen 4y ago

The benefit to a low level of fraud is that people are still looking out for fraud, so the society is more robust. If there was no fraud, and someone just invent fraud (it will happen), the damage could be devastating.

bryanrasmussen 4y ago
they would have to be Moriarty level like in their inventiveness, most people start low and then expand their inventiveness with experience, the low early frauds would establish the new invention in the society. Also The invention of Lying: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1058017/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1058017/