19 ms·

Gatekeeping the public's access to models is "good policy" now? I suppose you think you'll get a dispensation to use Fable and Mythos?

JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
> Gatekeeping the public's access to models is "good policy" now? Sorry, I was unclear. I mean that politicians being self serving doesn't tell you whether a policy is good or not.
- asdf88990 3mo ago
  It almost always does, the few exceptions prove the role. Self-service is the antithesis of accountability to collective trust.
  - JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
    > Self-service is the antithesis of accountability to collective trust Complex society is a potent counterargument to this hypothesis. Systems that rely on good people to work are fundamentally flawed. Instead, the game has to be about aligning self interets in favour of the collective.
    - asdf88990 3mo ago
      The self-interest for the bureaucrat and representative is supposed to end at their remuneration including their handsome retirement options not shady side hustles and market manipulation at the cost of the collective. In matters of collective concern fair and just rarely aligns with personal self-interest. Because no matter how good the outcome of any endeavour for the collective given a budget, it will be even better for select few than the entire collective. It is simple economics. If you look at the outcome of highly corrupt states, you will see proliferation of Private Security, Collapsed education system, failed financial services and markets, not highly efficient systems in service of “self-interest of the administration”.
      - deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
      - s1artibartfast 3mo ago
        Sounds like a failure to align interests. In general, politicians should want to be elected by the public, rewarded for acting in the public interest, and punished for not doing so. A system that does none of those things and just hopes it will all work out is a recipe for disaster. Why bother even having elections in that case?
        asdf88990 3mo ago
        Good question. But data shows that elections maybe entirely unrelated to policy making. http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/GilensPage2014.pdf http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/GilensPage2014.pdf
        JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
        That study has been roundly criticised. In part for misunderstanding how a republic is supposed to work. It's not a majoritarian system by design–direct democracy doesn't work.
        asdf88990 3mo ago
        That is a lot of bold assertions without substance.
        JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
        > That is a lot of bold assertions without substance Versus this comment? Here's one: attention is a finite resource. Most people adjudicate their political attention precisely. Survey folks on whether Twizzlers or Red Vines should be banned and you'll get an answer. The fact that nobody acts on that impulse doesn't mean your republic is broken. It means that isn't a priority issue. The practical example of this dilemma is foreign policy. Poll Americans about any foreign-policy issue and you'll see sharp divides. Put candidates in front of them that run on that issue and, nine times out of ten, outside I think twenty Congressional districts, it has no effect. If you aren't weighting by issue magnitude, you're conducting propaganda. Pickety's research isn't total crap. But it isn't instructive for changing our system of government.
    - AnthonyMouse 3mo ago
      > Complex society is a potent counterargument to this hypothesis. Complex society is the demonstration of that hypothesis. Misaligned incentives are widespread and corruption and inefficiency are the result. > Systems that rely on good people to work are fundamentally flawed. Instead, the game has to be about aligning self interets in favour of the collective. But now you're making a different argument. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" works by random chance. When Evil Corp pays off Candidate A and Pollution Inc pays off Candidate B and then it's Candidate B who gets in and retaliates against Evil Corp for backing the wrong horse, you're getting a good result by chance rather than by design. All it would have taken was for Candidate A to make a better prediction about whether they need to bend the knee to Pollution Inc too in order to win and the same system produces something even worse. How to actually get their incentives to align is an extremely unsolved problem. The best method we know if is to subject them to competition, e.g. break up concentrated markets and place strong limits on what lawmaking can happen centrally, leaving everything possible to state and local governments while allowing people free choice in where they live, so that no one is forced to stay in the jurisdictions that make the worst choices. But the forces of corruption want the exact opposite of that, and have been gaining ground.
      - JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
        > Complex society is the demonstration of that hypothesis. Misaligned incentives are widespread and corruption and inefficiency are the result. Of course they are. But aligned self-interest powers co-operation beyond kin relations and altruism. > "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" works by random chance Orthogonal concept. > How to actually get their incentives to align is an extremely unsolved problem No? It's the story of civilisation. Concepts like taxation; deterrence through corporal punishment, jailing and fines; paying salary for labour; hell, religion–these are all about aligning individual self interests with collective goals. > best method we know if is to subject them to competition I'd argue competition is more an optimiser on these primitives. Not a primitive per se.
        asdfsa32 3mo ago
        > aligned self-interest The qualifier tells you exactly what you're overlooking. self-interest, aside for some narrow exceptions, is often in conflict with collective interest. 1 Million to me is always better than a 1 Million split with everyone.
    - vintermann 3mo ago
      And who's going to do the aligning, if not good people? They constantly try to escape From the darkness outside and within By dreaming of systems so perfect That no one will need to be good
      - KPGv2 3mo ago
        Is you citation meant to imply that the people who want to improve bureaucracies are motivated by the fact they're evil?
        vintermann 3mo ago
        We are talking about the people who want and might be able to improve bureaucracies (towards some end). I'm asking you: do you assume they're good people? What happens when they're not?
    - worik 3mo ago
      > Systems that rely on good people to work... ...are the only systems that are available for free, democratic societies (like what I want to live in) to function

JumpCrisscross 3mo ago

> Gatekeeping the public's access to models is "good policy" now? Sorry, I was unclear. I mean that politicians being self serving doesn't tell you whether a policy is good or not.

asdf88990 3mo ago
It almost always does, the few exceptions prove the role. Self-service is the antithesis of accountability to collective trust.
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
  > Self-service is the antithesis of accountability to collective trust Complex society is a potent counterargument to this hypothesis. Systems that rely on good people to work are fundamentally flawed. Instead, the game has to be about aligning self interets in favour of the collective.
  - asdf88990 3mo ago
    The self-interest for the bureaucrat and representative is supposed to end at their remuneration including their handsome retirement options not shady side hustles and market manipulation at the cost of the collective. In matters of collective concern fair and just rarely aligns with personal self-interest. Because no matter how good the outcome of any endeavour for the collective given a budget, it will be even better for select few than the entire collective. It is simple economics. If you look at the outcome of highly corrupt states, you will see proliferation of Private Security, Collapsed education system, failed financial services and markets, not highly efficient systems in service of “self-interest of the administration”.
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    - s1artibartfast 3mo ago
      Sounds like a failure to align interests. In general, politicians should want to be elected by the public, rewarded for acting in the public interest, and punished for not doing so. A system that does none of those things and just hopes it will all work out is a recipe for disaster. Why bother even having elections in that case?
      - asdf88990 3mo ago
        Good question. But data shows that elections maybe entirely unrelated to policy making. http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/GilensPage2014.pdf http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/GilensPage2014.pdf
        JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
        That study has been roundly criticised. In part for misunderstanding how a republic is supposed to work. It's not a majoritarian system by design–direct democracy doesn't work.
        asdf88990 3mo ago
        That is a lot of bold assertions without substance.
        JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
        > That is a lot of bold assertions without substance Versus this comment? Here's one: attention is a finite resource. Most people adjudicate their political attention precisely. Survey folks on whether Twizzlers or Red Vines should be banned and you'll get an answer. The fact that nobody acts on that impulse doesn't mean your republic is broken. It means that isn't a priority issue. The practical example of this dilemma is foreign policy. Poll Americans about any foreign-policy issue and you'll see sharp divides. Put candidates in front of them that run on that issue and, nine times out of ten, outside I think twenty Congressional districts, it has no effect. If you aren't weighting by issue magnitude, you're conducting propaganda. Pickety's research isn't total crap. But it isn't instructive for changing our system of government.
  - AnthonyMouse 3mo ago
    > Complex society is a potent counterargument to this hypothesis. Complex society is the demonstration of that hypothesis. Misaligned incentives are widespread and corruption and inefficiency are the result. > Systems that rely on good people to work are fundamentally flawed. Instead, the game has to be about aligning self interets in favour of the collective. But now you're making a different argument. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" works by random chance. When Evil Corp pays off Candidate A and Pollution Inc pays off Candidate B and then it's Candidate B who gets in and retaliates against Evil Corp for backing the wrong horse, you're getting a good result by chance rather than by design. All it would have taken was for Candidate A to make a better prediction about whether they need to bend the knee to Pollution Inc too in order to win and the same system produces something even worse. How to actually get their incentives to align is an extremely unsolved problem. The best method we know if is to subject them to competition, e.g. break up concentrated markets and place strong limits on what lawmaking can happen centrally, leaving everything possible to state and local governments while allowing people free choice in where they live, so that no one is forced to stay in the jurisdictions that make the worst choices. But the forces of corruption want the exact opposite of that, and have been gaining ground.
    - JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
      > Complex society is the demonstration of that hypothesis. Misaligned incentives are widespread and corruption and inefficiency are the result. Of course they are. But aligned self-interest powers co-operation beyond kin relations and altruism. > "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" works by random chance Orthogonal concept. > How to actually get their incentives to align is an extremely unsolved problem No? It's the story of civilisation. Concepts like taxation; deterrence through corporal punishment, jailing and fines; paying salary for labour; hell, religion–these are all about aligning individual self interests with collective goals. > best method we know if is to subject them to competition I'd argue competition is more an optimiser on these primitives. Not a primitive per se.
      - asdfsa32 3mo ago
        > aligned self-interest The qualifier tells you exactly what you're overlooking. self-interest, aside for some narrow exceptions, is often in conflict with collective interest. 1 Million to me is always better than a 1 Million split with everyone.
  - vintermann 3mo ago
    And who's going to do the aligning, if not good people? They constantly try to escape From the darkness outside and within By dreaming of systems so perfect That no one will need to be good
    - KPGv2 3mo ago
      Is you citation meant to imply that the people who want to improve bureaucracies are motivated by the fact they're evil?
      - vintermann 3mo ago
        We are talking about the people who want and might be able to improve bureaucracies (towards some end). I'm asking you: do you assume they're good people? What happens when they're not?
  - worik 3mo ago
    > Systems that rely on good people to work... ...are the only systems that are available for free, democratic societies (like what I want to live in) to function