ChristianKl comments on Fixing Moral Hazards In Business Science - Less Wrong

33 Post author: DavidLS 18 October 2014 09:10PM

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

Comments (96)

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

Comment author: DavidLS 19 October 2014 01:38:25AM *  2 points [-]

This is not at all self-evident to me. How, for example, would you demonstrate product safety (for a diverse variety of products) via a standard template?

Templates not template. I think if you know roughly which bodily systems a product is likely to effect, the questions are not so diverse.

My background is not in question selection (it's ML and webapp programming), but here goes some general question ideas for edible products:

  • I have/have not felt sick to my stomach in the last 24 hours. (standardized 1-7 to rate severity)
  • I have/have not felt dizzy in the last 24 hours. (standardized 1-7 to rate severity)
  • Bristol stool scale score

The mandatory questions are intended to give LessWrong / everyone a say in what startups will test their products for -- NOT to provide a 100% guarantee of general safety (the FDA already handles that). We should use these questions to learn about unanticipated side effects.

Research costs money and requires competent people. If it were possible to do meaningful research on the cheap just by reusing the same template, don't you think it would be a very popular opinion already?

I'm hope it will do something akin to what Google Translate did for translation: lower the cost for modest use cases. If you want a high quality translation (poetry) you still need to hire a good translator. However, if you are willing to accept a reasonably good level of translation quality, it's now free.

I agree it's weird that somebody else hasn't noticed. testifiable.com is the closest I've found. I've already spoken with Testifiable founder's and invited them to this thread.

Comment author: ChristianKl 20 October 2014 01:49:56PM 2 points [-]

I'm hope it will do something akin to what Google Translate did for translation: lower the cost for modest use cases. If you want a high quality translation (poetry) you still need to hire a good translator. However, if you are willing to accept a reasonably good level of translation quality, it's now free.

I think you overrate the quality of Google Translate. That pitch doesn't sound right to me.

Comment author: DavidLS 20 October 2014 08:06:28PM 2 points [-]

Ahh, okay. That one goes on the scrap heap.

I think if you change the price of something by an order of magnitude you get a fundamental change in what it's used for. The examples that jump to mind are letters -> email, hand copied parchment -> printing press -> blogs, and SpaceX. If you increase the quality at the same time you (at least sometimes) get a mini-revolution.

I think a better example might be online courses. It can be annoying that you can't ask the professor any questions (customize the experience), but they are still vastly better than nothing.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 21 October 2014 12:25:29PM 3 points [-]

Another example is the use of steel. If it's expensive, it's used for needles and watch springs. If it's cheap, it's used for girders.

Comment author: ChristianKl 20 October 2014 09:46:58PM 3 points [-]

Email is not only cheaper than letters but also much faster.

The online courses example sounds reasonable but I'm still not sure whether that's the best marketing strategy. Having a seal for following good science processes like preregistration might have it's own value.