3 ms·

Cambridge Analytica didn't actually work, did it? Generally I think this idea can't work because of Goodhart's Law - people's behavior changes when you try to

Cambridge Analytica didn't actually work, did it? Generally I think this idea can't work because of Goodhart's Law - people's behavior changes when you try to influence them.

1attice 4y ago
I'm really not sure where 'didn't work' comes from. Some folks think it was ineffective. Others think it worked great. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica#Assessment_of_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica#Assessment... For my argument, I only need to point out that it was attempted, as I'm proving motivation; the effectiveness of CA methods has no bearing on the effectivenss of (say) simulated people. Increasingly, when interacting with comments on HN and elsewhere, it feels like I'm from a parallel timeline where things happened, and mattered, and an ever-growing percentage of my interlocutors are, for lack of a better word, dissociated. Perhaps not in the clinical sense, but certainly in the following senses: - Cause and effect are not immediately observed without careful prompting. - Intersubjectively verifiable historical facts that happened recently are remembered hazily, and doubtfully, even by very intelligent people - Positions are expressed that somehow disinclude unfavourable facts. - Data, the gold standard for truth and proof, is not sought, or, if proffered, is not examined. The stances and positions held seem to have a sort of 'immunity' to evidence. - Positions which are not popular in this specific community are downranked without engagement or argument, instead of discussed. I do believe folks are working backward from the emotional position they want to maintain to a set of minimizing beliefs about the looming hazards of this increasingly fraught decade. Let's call this knee-jerk position "un-alarmism", as in "that's just un-alarmism". I'm going to say as much here.

Cambridge Analytica didn't actually work, did it? Generally I think this idea can't work because of Goodhart's Law - people's behavior changes when you try to influence them.

1attice 4y ago

I'm really not sure where 'didn't work' comes from. Some folks think it was ineffective. Others think it worked great. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica#Assessment_of_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica#Assessment... For my argument, I only need to point out that it was attempted, as I'm proving motivation; the effectiveness of CA methods has no bearing on the effectivenss of (say) simulated people. Increasingly, when interacting with comments on HN and elsewhere, it feels like I'm from a parallel timeline where things happened, and mattered, and an ever-growing percentage of my interlocutors are, for lack of a better word, dissociated. Perhaps not in the clinical sense, but certainly in the following senses: - Cause and effect are not immediately observed without careful prompting. - Intersubjectively verifiable historical facts that happened recently are remembered hazily, and doubtfully, even by very intelligent people - Positions are expressed that somehow disinclude unfavourable facts. - Data, the gold standard for truth and proof, is not sought, or, if proffered, is not examined. The stances and positions held seem to have a sort of 'immunity' to evidence. - Positions which are not popular in this specific community are downranked without engagement or argument, instead of discussed. I do believe folks are working backward from the emotional position they want to maintain to a set of minimizing beliefs about the looming hazards of this increasingly fraught decade. Let's call this knee-jerk position "un-alarmism", as in "that's just un-alarmism". I'm going to say as much here.