NancyLebovitz comments on Open Thread, April 27-May 4, 2014 - Less Wrong

0 Post author: NancyLebovitz 27 April 2014 08:34PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (200)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 04 May 2014 01:01:30PM *  3 points [-]

EA is about things that are relatively easy to measure, and causing political change is hard to measure.

Comment author: jpl68 18 May 2014 04:59:39PM 0 points [-]

I do not think EA is about things that are relatively easy to measure. It is about doing things with the highest expected value. It is just that due partly to regression to the mean things with measurably high values should have among the highest expected values. See Adam Caseys posts on 80 000 Hours.

Comment author: David_Gerard 04 May 2014 09:59:28PM *  -1 points [-]

Goodhart, of course: after a short time, only the metric counts.

The solution is obvious: I create enough simulations that are good enough to constitute sentient beings, and make them all happy, that this adds up to MUCH more goodness than my present day job running a highly profitable baby mulching operation to fund it all. Like buying "asshole offsets".

Comment author: fubarobfusco 05 May 2014 05:47:47AM 0 points [-]

Some policy changes are hard to measure. Some are controversial to measure — you can measure them, but people will call you nasty names for doing so.

I expect that anyone who measured and forecast the health effects of reduction in lead pollution, back in the days of lead paint and leaded gasoline, was probably called "anti-business" or worse. Fortunately, they won anyway, and the effects are indeed measurable — in reduced cases of lead poisoning, and apparently in increased IQs of city residents.