= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jiro comments on Open thread, 7-14 July 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (232)
No, it doesn't. That function affects the calculation by increasing the total utilions we attribute to productivity. Unless the increase is infinite, it is still possible for the loss in utility from high variance to outweigh the gain in utility from increased productivity.
This only works if the main contribution to utility from working consists of the personal fulfillment of the worker rather than the benefits generated by the work.
Only in the sense that any measure of utility that involves the condition of a person consists of their personal fulfillment.
You're argument essentially amounts to arguing that we should give people with low skills make-work jobs in order to increase utility.
"Make-work" carries the connotation that the productivity of the worker is less valuable than his pay. "Less valuable than optimum" is not the same as "less valuable than his pay". Furthermore, "low skills" carries the inapt connotation "very low" (and low-testing doesn't necessarily imply low skills anyway.)
The problem is that someone who is either marginally less productive, or marginally worse at testing, can find his ability to get a job decreased by an amount all out of proportion to how worse he is, if all employers use the same measure. Ensuring that such people can get jobs isn't make-work.
Is there some reason why most of my posts in this thread are modded down, other than disagreement?