3 ms·

Will at any point we be able to build a system that won’t be gamed? ie. A system whose incentives are perfectly aligned with its operators and users incentives

by nico 3y ago

Will at any point we be able to build a system that won’t be gamed? ie. A system whose incentives are perfectly aligned with its operators and users incentives?

boringg 3y ago
Never. We are humans - humans are by our very nature dynamic.
- nico 3y ago
  You mean we have to always oppose someone else’s incentives? Or we always have to see someone else’s incentives as an opposition to ours? What does dynamic nature imply? Can’t a system be dynamic?
  - boringg 3y ago
    No as humans we will always game a system to maximize their individual incentives. Systems can be dynamic but humans are more creative dynamic than systems can be designed. That is and will always be true.
    - nico 3y ago
      An absolute truth
advisedwang 3y ago
In system/process design, you generally need feedback in a system to operate optimally. Rather than try and create a system that can be set up and left alone - which will eventually get gamed or otherwise become unfit over time - we should aim to have feedback to continuously adjust and improve our systems. For the highest level functions of our society, this feedback is humans and politics. We need a politics that allows issues in the financial system (and all other societal systems) to be assessed and changed over time, responsive to the needs of the people.
gsatic 3y ago
For that the requirements are well known - infinite resources, infinite knowledge, infinite time. See Theory of Bounded Rationality.
HWR_14 3y ago
What kind of system are you asking for? Entire national economic system? News? Stock Market?
anigbrowl 3y ago
No, but we can make decisions about what sort of losses/abuses we consider tolerable. A simple way to approach this is to just change the calculus of what sentencing terms different sorts of crime should attract. Right now you can operate a bank, rip people off or launder dirty money wholesale, and face only mild criminal liability. Consider Wachovia Bank, for example, which was found to be laundering cartel drug money at scale. They had to pay a fat fine and the company was force-sold to Wells Fargo amid the financial crisis, but as far as I'm aware nobody spent a day in prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wachovia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wachovia

by nico 3y ago

Will at any point we be able to build a system that won’t be gamed? ie. A system whose incentives are perfectly aligned with its operators and users incentives?

boringg 3y ago

Never. We are humans - humans are by our very nature dynamic.

nico 3y ago
You mean we have to always oppose someone else’s incentives? Or we always have to see someone else’s incentives as an opposition to ours? What does dynamic nature imply? Can’t a system be dynamic?
- boringg 3y ago
  No as humans we will always game a system to maximize their individual incentives. Systems can be dynamic but humans are more creative dynamic than systems can be designed. That is and will always be true.
  - nico 3y ago
    An absolute truth

advisedwang 3y ago

In system/process design, you generally need feedback in a system to operate optimally. Rather than try and create a system that can be set up and left alone - which will eventually get gamed or otherwise become unfit over time - we should aim to have feedback to continuously adjust and improve our systems. For the highest level functions of our society, this feedback is humans and politics. We need a politics that allows issues in the financial system (and all other societal systems) to be assessed and changed over time, responsive to the needs of the people.

gsatic 3y ago

For that the requirements are well known - infinite resources, infinite knowledge, infinite time. See Theory of Bounded Rationality.

HWR_14 3y ago

What kind of system are you asking for? Entire national economic system? News? Stock Market?

anigbrowl 3y ago

No, but we can make decisions about what sort of losses/abuses we consider tolerable. A simple way to approach this is to just change the calculus of what sentencing terms different sorts of crime should attract. Right now you can operate a bank, rip people off or launder dirty money wholesale, and face only mild criminal liability. Consider Wachovia Bank, for example, which was found to be laundering cartel drug money at scale. They had to pay a fat fine and the company was force-sold to Wells Fargo amid the financial crisis, but as far as I'm aware nobody spent a day in prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wachovia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wachovia