Do you have an example that doesn't involve an objective metric? Of course objective metrics won't turn bad. They're more measurements than metrics, really.
I'd like to push back on this a little, because I think it's important to understanding why Goodhart's Law shows up so frequently.
*There are no /objective/ metrics*, only proxies.
You can't measure a meter directly, you have to use a proxy like a tape measure. Similarly you can't measure time directly, you have to use a stop watch. In a normal conversation I wouldn't be nitpicking like this because those proxies are so well aligned with our intended measures and the lack of precision is generally inconsequential. But once you start measuring anything with precision you cannot ignore the fact that you're limited to proxies.
The difference of when we get more abstract in our goals is not too dissimilar. Our measuring tools are just really imprecise. So we have to take great care to understand the meaning of our metrics and their limits, just like we would if we were doing high precision measurements with something more "mundane" like distance.
I think this is something most people don't have to contend with because frankly, very few people do high precision work. And unfortunately we often use algorithms as black boxes. But the more complex a subject is the more important an expert is. It looks like they are just throwing data into a black box and reading the answer, but that's just a naive interpretation.
Sure, if you get a ruler from the store it might be off by a fraction of a percent in a way that usually doesn't matter and occasionally does, but even if you could measure distance exactly that doesn't get you out of it.
Because what Goodhart's law is really about is bureaucratic cleavage. People care about lots of diverging and overlapping things, but bureaucratic rules don't. As soon as you make something a target, you've created the incentive to make that number go up at the expense of all the other things you're not targeting but still care about.
You can take something which is clearly what you actually want. Suppose you're commissioning a spaceship to take you to Alpha Centauri and then it's important that it go fast because otherwise it'll take too long. We don't even need to get into exactly how fast it needs to go or how to measure a meter or anything like that, we can just say that going fast is a target. And it's a valid target; it actually needs to do that.
Which leaves you already in trouble. If your organization solicits bids for the spaceship and that's the only target, you better not accept one before you notice that you also need things like "has the ability to carry occupants" and "doesn't kill the occupants" and "doesn't cost 999 trillion dollars" or else those are all on the chopping block in the interest of going fast.
So you add those things as targets too and then people come up with new and fascinating ways to meet them by sacrificing other things you wanted but didn't require.
What's really happening here is that if you set targets and then require someone else to meet them, they will meet the targets in ways that you will not like. It's the principal-agent problem. The only real way out of it is for principals to be their own agents, which is exactly the thing a bureaucracy isn't.
I've just taken another step to understand the philosophy of those bureaucrats. Clearly they have some logic, right? So we have to understand why they think they can organize and regulate from the spreadsheet. Ultimately it comes down to a belief that the measurements (or numbers) are "good enough" and that they have a good understanding of how to interpret them. Which with many bureaucracies that is the belief that no interpretation is needed. But we also see that behavior with armchair experts who try to use data to evidence their conclusion rather than interpret data and conclude from that interpretation.
Goodhart had focused on the incentive structure of the rule, but that does not tell us how this all happens and why the rule is so persistent. I think you're absolutely right that there is a problem with agents, and it's no surprise that when many introduce the concept of "reward hacking" that they reference Goodhart's Law. Yes, humans can typically see beyond the metric and infer the intended outcome, but ignore this because they don't care and so fixate on the measurement because that gives them the reward. Bureaucracies no doubt amplify this behavior as they are well known to be soul crushing.
But we should also be asking ourselves if the same effect can apply in settings where we have the best of intentions and all the agents are acting in good faith and trying to interpret the measure instead of just game it. The answer is yes. Idk, call it Godelski's Corollary if you want (I wouldn't), but it this relates to Goodhart's Law at a fundamental level. You can still have metric hacking even when agents aren't aware or even intending to do so. Bureaucracy is not required.
In a sense you can do the same thing to yourself. If you self-impose a target and try to meet it while ignoring a lot of things that you're not measuring even though they're still important, you can unintentionally sacrifice those things. But there's a difference.
In that case you have to not notice it, which sets a much lower cap on how messed up things can get. If things are really on fire then you notice right away and you have the agency to do something different.
Whereas if the target is imposed by a far-off hierarchy or regulatory bureaucracy, the people on the ground who notice that things are going wrong have no authority to change it, which means they carry on going wrong.
Or put it this way: The degree to which it's a problem is proportional to the size of the bureaucracy. You can cause some trouble for yourself if you're not paying attention but you're still directly exposed to "hear reason or she'll make you feel her". If it's just you and your boss who you talk to every day, that's not as good but it's still not that bad. But if the people imposing the target aren't even in the same state, you can be filling the morgue with bodies and still not have them notice.
> In a sense you can do the same thing to yourself.
Of course. I said you can do it unknowingly too.
> The degree to which it's a problem is proportional to the size of the bureaucracy.
Now take a few steps more and answer "why". What are the reasons this happens and what are the reasons people think it is reasonable? Do you think it happens purely because people are dumb? Or smart but unintended. I think you should look back at my comment because it handles both cases.
To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong. We're just talking about the concept at different depths.
I don't think the premise that everything is a proxy is right. We can distinguish between proxies and components.
A proxy is something like, you're trying to tell if hiring discrimination is happening or to minimize it so you look at the proportion of each race in some occupation compared to their proportion of the general population. That's only a proxy because there could be reasons other than hiring discrimination for a disparity.
A component is something like, a spaceship needs to go fast. That's not the only thing it needs to do, but space is really big so going fast is kind of a sine qua non of making a spaceship useful and that's the direct requirement rather than a proxy for it.
Goodhart's law can apply to both. The problem with proxies is they're misaligned. The problem with components is they're incomplete. But this is where we come back to the principal-agent problem.
If you could enumerate all of the components and target them all then you'd have a way out of Goodhart's law. Of course, you can't because there are too many of them. But, many of the components -- especially the ones people take for granted and fail to list -- are satisfied by default or with minimal effort. And then enumerating the others, the ones that are both important and hard to satisfy, gets you what you're after in practice.
As long as the person setting the target and the person meeting it are the same person. When they're not, the person setting the target can't take anything for granted because otherwise the person meeting the target can take advantage of that.
> What are the reasons this happens and what are the reasons people think it is reasonable? Do you think it happens purely because people are dumb? Or smart but unintended.
In many cases it's because there are people (regulators, corporate bureaucrats) who aren't in a position to do something without causing significant collateral damage because they only have access to weak proxies, and then they cause the collateral damage because we required them to do it regardless, when we shouldn't have been trying to get them to do something they're in no position to do well.
> I don't think the premise that everything is a proxy is right.
I said every measurement. That is a key word.
I know we're operating at a level that most people never encounter, but you cannot in fact measure a meter. You can use a reference tool like a ruler to try to measure distance which is calibrated. But that's a proxy. You aren't measuring a meter, you're measuring with a tool that is estimating a meter. You can get really precise and use a laser. But now you're actually doing a time of flight measurement, where a laser is bouncing off of something and you're measuring the time it takes to come back. Technically you're always getting 2x the measurement but either way you're actually not measuring distance you're measuring a light impulse (which is going to have units like candles or watts) and timing it, which we then convert those units to meters. You can continue this further to even recognize the limits of each of those estimates and this is an important factor if you're trying to determine the sensitivity (and thus error) of your device.
So I think you really aren't understanding this point. There is no possible way you can directly measure even the most fundamental scientific units (your best chance is going to probably be a mole but quantum mechanics is going to fuck you up).
> The problem with proxies is they're misaligned. The problem with components is they're incomplete.
If you pay close attention to what I'm talking about then you might find that these aren't as different as you think they are.
> If you could enumerate all of the components and target them all then you'd have a way out of Goodhart's law.
Which is my point. It isn't just that you can't because they are abstract, you can't because the physical limits of the universe prevent you to in even the non-abstract cases.
I am 100% behind you in that we should better define what we're trying to measure. But this is no different than talking about measuring something with higher precision. Our example above moved from a physical reference device to a laser and a stopwatch. That's a pretty dramatic shift, right? Uses completely different mechanisms. So abstract what you're thinking just a little so we can generalize the concept. I think if you do then we'll be on the same page.
> In many cases
I think you misunderstood my point here. Those were rhetorical questions and the last sentence tells you why I used them. They were not questions I needed answering. Frankly, I believe something similar is happening throughout our conversation since you are frequently trying to answer questions that don't need answering and telling me things which I have even directly acknowledged. It's creating a weird situation where I don't know how to answer because I don't know how you'll interpret what I'm saying. You seem to think that I'm disagreeing with you on everything and that just isn't true. For the most part I do agree. But to get you on the same level as me I need you to be addressing why these things are happening. Keep asking why until you don't know. That exists at some depth, right? It's true for everyone since we're not omniscient gods. My conclusion certainly isn't all comprehensive, but it does find this interesting and critical part where we run into something you would probably be less surprised about if you looked at my name.
Doctors, especially young doctors, are not the wildly greedy people you paint them to be. There are dozens of easier paths to riches these days than medicine and we all know it. My medical school is "cheap" and tuition + cost of living is ~$90k/year. Then, we have 3-7 years of residency before we start making the real money which is less than any generation of doctors in 100 years. I could become a senior software engineer at a Fortune 50 company in less time than it takes to graduate medical school and be better off financially than most doctors. Ask me how I know.
"But even a very small percentage of wildly greedy people can damage a system severely."
You are close to placing the blame in the correct place. My emergency department was just bought by a private equity group. There were 28 doctors. Most of whom worked there because they could spend adequate time with patients and work a reasonable schedule. After the PE company bought us, they mandated less of EVERY position from CNA to MD. The MD headcount is now 11, and the 17 physicians who are looking for jobs are having a tough time (relatively) because most other emergency departments in the area are also owned by PE firms who care about money over health outcomes. Those are the greedy people damaging the system you are looking for.
I have found the biggest commonality in otherwise intelligent Trump supporters in my life is deep-seated insecurity issues.
The second biggest is a life that hasn't gone how they had envisioned and, rather than take accountability, they blame anything but their choices. Though, I think lack of accountability is a symptom of insecurity, so it is wrapped up in the first issue.
Let's have a conversation about leaking tax dollars. How do you feel about our tax dollars directly enriching the sitting president? How do you feel about our tax dollars leaking into a military parade to celebrate the president's birthday? If you don't address those leaks, how can we be expected to take people like you seriously when you defend authoritarian policy as fiscally responsible?
that's 10 cents per american (still crazy!), but not $30, and $30 is only for Harvard much less how much federal funds go to other schools
Obviously I'd rather that 10 cents go to something productive, but on the national stage trump golfing feels like just a distraction from much more important topics
Hey. I am not a migraine guy but a paroxysmal, full-body, painful hives type of guy. Like some migraine people, my symptoms eventually stopped happening after trying all sorts of things for years, and I can't say precisely what the "cure" really was. Or if I am not just in a 7-year-long remission.
Anyway, I experienced this fatigue you speak of. I am not sure this will help you since your fatigue appears to come from blood tests/medical treatments, but hopefully it helps somebody. What helped was when the suggestion was something I could do that was healthier/cheaper/more beneficial than what I was currently doing, I would frame it as, "This might not fix my debilitating problem, but it will improve my life in some way. So, worst case scenario, I'm in the green."
Examples (I am not suggesting these as migraine silver bullets, but I am trying to clarify what I mean):
- Someone in this thread mentioned cutting out xanthan gum and other thickening agents has helped. Will that cure you? Probably not. Is it a healthy lifestyle change? Probably. Why not try?
- I cut out processed food, which helped me realize that I was eating 1-3 frozen Trader Joe's meals per day.
- I got an air quality monitor that made me realize the brain fog I felt at night was due to worsening air quality in my home.
- I switched to unscented soap and laundry detergent, which was cheaper. (Artificial laundry scent now smells sickly and synthetic to me, which may be a downside.)
- I set up reminders for change-by dates for furnace/car filters, vacuuming, dusting etc.
I don't know if any of this is why I don't experience symptoms anymore, but I don't regret any of it, and have long-term positive effects regardless.
Lastly, after several creams & allergy pills, I stopped getting my hopes up that anything would fix me. Expectation management is essential for avoiding fatigue.
Hope this helps you or somebody else. I am sorry you have suffered for so long.
I had it done 2 years ago and started taking it for granted about 4 days after the operation. I have perfect sight with no complaints and almost never think about it.
Got mine done 8 years ago with around -3 lenses, but also with some notable astigmatism (forgot the number). Couldn’t have been happier.
Yes, sometimes I get dry eyes, but it is such a minor thing that I don’t even notice it, and it can be alleviated entirely by just using eyedrops twice a day. If I could go back in time and reconsider my decision, I would still go with it 10 times out of 10, not even a question.
I am here to restore your confidence about autoimmune issues.
Recently (and still in many cases) "turn down the immune system" was the treatment for most cancers. Of course, the purpose of anti-cancer drugs isn't to turn down the immune system. It just happens that the side effect of drugs that target cancer cells also target other rapidly-dividing cells like hair, endothelial, and immune cells.
In fact, chemotherapy drugs like Methotrexate are prescribed - at lower doses than for cancer patients - to people with Lupus and other autoimmune diseases.
There are similar challenges with cancer and autoimmune diseases, so progress in one might help progress in the other.
From the article: "They are now working to find ways to deliver these molecules safely and effectively to people." This is a challenge for many potentially effective cancer treatments as well.
It should inspire confidence that we have moved beyond that for many types of cancer. And if it can be done with cancer treatment, we are closer to doing it with autoimmune and anti-virus treatments.
Given no knowledge beforehand, "water fast" can mean either of two things:
* You only consume water.
* You consume anything but water.
Both understandings can be inferred at face value, but only one is correct.
I too understood this as the latter before subsequent comments specified it is the former, and the name isn't even accurate since apparently consuming tea or black coffee is also acceptable.
Using as few words as possible is often the hallmark of a talented orator, but sometimes it pays off to be verbose and specific.
