4 ms·

voters who got the “right answers” It is a fascist thing to assume that for every political question there is only one "right" answer and all the others must b

by tremon 4y ago

voters who got the “right answers” It is a fascist thing to assume that for every political question there is only one "right" answer and all the others must be wrong.

blueflow 4y ago
I think it was meant like, which decision had more favorable results. But this might only shift the problem to the entity to decide what is more favorable. Aside from that, i agree with you, the "right or wrong opinion" mindset is dangerous.
- prox 4y ago
  Wellness and happiness are two markers, if measured correctly/ scientifically that can be of use perhaps.
- godelski 4y ago
  > I think it was meant like, which decision had more favorable results. How does one even do this? Wait a hundred years? It's still probably impossible to determine the outcome of alternative policies. The right/wrong mindset is not only dangerous, but impossible in principle. But the autocrats won't tell you that.
NL807 4y ago
It depends on how you define "right answers". We could be talking about policy making based on objective truth, which is testable and is grounded in reality.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Given an objective scientific fact, what is the appropriate policy that should be enacted concerning that fact? That depends on your values, priorities and ethical framework, none of which have objectively correct answers.
- godelski 4y ago
  > which is testable and is grounded in reality. How? This is absolutely impossible. You can't run trials. Yes, we can analyze the effects of policies (which we should certainly be doing more of) but these results can also take decades. We can only do a singular experiment and so our sample is biased to all hell. There is no objective truth here, only results of a single experiment.
  - visarga 4y ago
    > How? This is absolutely impossible. It is possible to use GPT-3 to impersonate someone. You give it a profile and it assumes the personality, then speaks from that point of view replicating its biases with uncanny ability. So what they did was to create a simulated poll using GPT-3 by aligning the model to personality profiles distributed identically to the real population. The result? GPT-3 can predict how an idea would poll, how a population would react to a situation. So you can simulate various policies without actually having to test in reality. You can do MCMC like AlphaGO and see ten moves ahead. This looks to be one of the most astounding uses of large language models. It would be of immediate interest to politicians, investors, advertisers, music and movie produces or any influencer. It gives me heavy 'Matrix' and 'Psychohistory' vibes. https://jack-clark.net/2022/10/11/import-ai-305-gpt3-can-simulate-real-people-ai-discovers-better-matrix-multiplication-microsoft-worries-about-next-gen-deepfakes/ https://jack-clark.net/2022/10/11/import-ai-305-gpt3-can-sim... https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.06899 https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.06899
    - someguyorother 4y ago
      >You can do MCMC like AlphaGO and see ten moves ahead. The existence of adversarial attacks shows that most neural networks have pretty bad worst-case performance. Thus sticking GPT-3 into alpha-beta or MCTS could just as easily give you an ungeneralizable optimum, because optimizers are by nature intended to find extreme responses. Call it a Campbell's law for neural nets. The actual AlphaZero nets are probably more robust because they were themselves trained by MCTS, although they still don't generalize very well out-of-sample: IIRC AlphaZero is not a very strong Fischer Random player.
    - 4y ago
- goto11 4y ago
  > policy making based on objective truth Policy making is not about truth, it is about values and priorities.
- jcims 4y ago
  I would have a very difficult time coming up with an actionable policy where the objective, implementation and side-effects could all be modeled to a point where the policy in its entirety could be described as based on objective truth.
cpeterso 4y ago
By "voters who got the 'right answers'", I meant voters whose votes most closely matched the final election results. If some voters always match the results of the group, then those voters are representative of the group psyche and could become official representatives of the group for future elections.

by tremon 4y ago

voters who got the “right answers” It is a fascist thing to assume that for every political question there is only one "right" answer and all the others must be wrong.

blueflow 4y ago

I think it was meant like, which decision had more favorable results. But this might only shift the problem to the entity to decide what is more favorable. Aside from that, i agree with you, the "right or wrong opinion" mindset is dangerous.

prox 4y ago
Wellness and happiness are two markers, if measured correctly/ scientifically that can be of use perhaps.
godelski 4y ago
> I think it was meant like, which decision had more favorable results. How does one even do this? Wait a hundred years? It's still probably impossible to determine the outcome of alternative policies. The right/wrong mindset is not only dangerous, but impossible in principle. But the autocrats won't tell you that.

NL807 4y ago

It depends on how you define "right answers". We could be talking about policy making based on objective truth, which is testable and is grounded in reality.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
Given an objective scientific fact, what is the appropriate policy that should be enacted concerning that fact? That depends on your values, priorities and ethical framework, none of which have objectively correct answers.
godelski 4y ago
> which is testable and is grounded in reality. How? This is absolutely impossible. You can't run trials. Yes, we can analyze the effects of policies (which we should certainly be doing more of) but these results can also take decades. We can only do a singular experiment and so our sample is biased to all hell. There is no objective truth here, only results of a single experiment.
- visarga 4y ago
  > How? This is absolutely impossible. It is possible to use GPT-3 to impersonate someone. You give it a profile and it assumes the personality, then speaks from that point of view replicating its biases with uncanny ability. So what they did was to create a simulated poll using GPT-3 by aligning the model to personality profiles distributed identically to the real population. The result? GPT-3 can predict how an idea would poll, how a population would react to a situation. So you can simulate various policies without actually having to test in reality. You can do MCMC like AlphaGO and see ten moves ahead. This looks to be one of the most astounding uses of large language models. It would be of immediate interest to politicians, investors, advertisers, music and movie produces or any influencer. It gives me heavy 'Matrix' and 'Psychohistory' vibes. https://jack-clark.net/2022/10/11/import-ai-305-gpt3-can-simulate-real-people-ai-discovers-better-matrix-multiplication-microsoft-worries-about-next-gen-deepfakes/ https://jack-clark.net/2022/10/11/import-ai-305-gpt3-can-sim... https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.06899 https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.06899
  - someguyorother 4y ago
    >You can do MCMC like AlphaGO and see ten moves ahead. The existence of adversarial attacks shows that most neural networks have pretty bad worst-case performance. Thus sticking GPT-3 into alpha-beta or MCTS could just as easily give you an ungeneralizable optimum, because optimizers are by nature intended to find extreme responses. Call it a Campbell's law for neural nets. The actual AlphaZero nets are probably more robust because they were themselves trained by MCTS, although they still don't generalize very well out-of-sample: IIRC AlphaZero is not a very strong Fischer Random player.
  - 4y ago
goto11 4y ago
> policy making based on objective truth Policy making is not about truth, it is about values and priorities.
jcims 4y ago
I would have a very difficult time coming up with an actionable policy where the objective, implementation and side-effects could all be modeled to a point where the policy in its entirety could be described as based on objective truth.

cpeterso 4y ago

By "voters who got the 'right answers'", I meant voters whose votes most closely matched the final election results. If some voters always match the results of the group, then those voters are representative of the group psyche and could become official representatives of the group for future elections.