= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
beoShaffer comments on The Sciencearchist Manifesto - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (64)
I don't know yet, that's really the tough one. They could always just be paid off. I plan on looking into how they do so in current betting markets.
From what I understand, I'm not an expert, its a pretty major open question that has mostly avoid coming up do to the current markets being fairly low stakes relative to the value the organizers place on their reputations and gathering useful information from the markets.
Every proposal must have a test to determine success as an official part, before betting is allowed on the given proposal. Two proposals with identical policy but different tests are not identical. The test must discriminate between the given policy helping, or hindering, to ensure, increase, or spread, general happiness. You then bet on whether the result of the policy's test will come back positive or negative conditional on instituting the policy.
You may even allow for your test to return degrees of success, and bet on ranges of success.
Obviously, if you're proposal is to get more farming done. And you think it will increase happiness because food is good. The test for success that you should put down is sample of food production before policy, and sample after. Sometimes top gamblers may not be sure if people like something, and then to find out they should use neuron-imaging. After that is done, it is a matter of whether a given policy will increase the availability of the desired state or thing, or decrease the availability of the disliked state or thing. If some people like it and some hate it, the optimal is to have everybody be able to do what they want as much as possible.
What about proposals that achieve their stated objectives, but bad unintended consequences in other areas?
that's interesting. I'll get back to you.