News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Incentive Flipping by Brian_K_White on Monday May 02, 2022 @04:15PM (#31240319)
The climate change example has a hole in the form of people who neither believe nor disbelieve that the temperature will rise or fall, or that it's caused by man or that it's adressable by man, but simply don't agree it's necessarily a problem either way.

They aren't necessarily saying the temp won't rise or that the climate and landscape and bioscape won't change. It's possible to simply not have a problem with any of that.

Climate change debate is more about agreeing on a goal than agreeing on a fact or an outcome.

A whole bunch of people would not bother betting on either outcome, and so the bets have no influence on their actions.

The regulatory stopgap seems inelegant too. Like the whole point of the article is to try to get a system to self regulate through correct alignment of incentives. Well that part indicates an imcomplete system then, since that's not an incentive, nor even an elegant equilibrium-based governor mechanism, it's a plain manual control.

Well since they didn't say what the regulatory measure would be I suppose that could be something elegant, but I think it's too central to the whole idea to leave as a handwave. That's like the step 2 ??? between socks and profit.

Re:Incentive Flipping by aditya_rs on Tuesday May 03, 2022 @04:02AM (#31245853)
> but I think it's too central to the whole idea to leave as a handwave

haha yeah, you're right I could have been more clear on why I thought there was a need for it.

One way to look at it (though might not be a strong argument) is even with the current regulatory framework, the incentives are not aligned. So I don't think regulation is a way to align incentives rather it acts as a floor of what should be acceptable behavior.

The reason why I think a regulatory stop gap is needed is, when a problem doesn't have enough momentum towards it, it's much easier to make a problem worse than to make it better and regulation acts as a valve by indicating the directional progress we want to make and prevent making it worse at least until there is sufficient momentum that progress from the problem is clearly much better than the alternative.

That said, I think for the problems I used as examples in the article the current mechanisms and the current framework we have are sufficient, and possibly no new regulation needs to be taken. (i.e, for the case of doctors, we already have pretty good mechanisms to prevent doctors from creating actual harm, for climate change we already have limits on carbon emissions, etc.)