The EA Forum wiki has talk pages!! Wow you learn something new every day :-)
Separately, I think Hilary’s talk is a valuable contribution to the problem, so I don’t think it warrants a negative evaluation
Yes I think that is ultimately the thing we disagree on. And perhaps it is one of those subjective things that we will always disagree on (e.g. maybe different life experiences means you read some content as new and exciting and I read the same thing as old and repetitive).
If I had to condense why I didn’t think it is a valuable contribution is it looks to me (given my background) that it is reinventing the wheel.
The rough topic of how to make decisions under uncertainty about the impact of those decisions (uncertainty about what the options are, what the probabilities are, how to decide, what is even valuable ect) in the face of unknown unknowns, etc – is a topic that military planners, risk managers, academics and others have been researching for decades. And they have a host of solutions: anti-fragility, robust-decision making, assumption based planning, sequence thinking, adaptive planning. And they have views on when to make such decisions, when to do more research, how to respond, etc.
I think any thorough analysis of the options for addressing uncertainty/cluelessness really should draw on some of that literature (before dismissing options like “make bolder estimates” / “make the analysis more sophisticated”) . Otherwise it would be like trying to reinvent the wheel, suggesting it should be square and then concluding it cannot be done and wheels don’t work.
Hope that explains where I am coming from.
(PS. To reiterate, in Hilary’s defense, EAs reinvent wheels all the time. No1 top flaw and all that. I just think this specific case has lead to lots of confusion. Eg people thinking there is no good research into uncertainty management)
The EA Forum wiki has talk pages!! Wow you learn something new every day :-)
Yes I think that is ultimately the thing we disagree on. And perhaps it is one of those subjective things that we will always disagree on (e.g. maybe different life experiences means you read some content as new and exciting and I read the same thing as old and repetitive).
If I had to condense why I didn’t think it is a valuable contribution is it looks to me (given my background) that it is reinventing the wheel.
The rough topic of how to make decisions under uncertainty about the impact of those decisions (uncertainty about what the options are, what the probabilities are, how to decide, what is even valuable ect) in the face of unknown unknowns, etc – is a topic that military planners, risk managers, academics and others have been researching for decades. And they have a host of solutions: anti-fragility, robust-decision making, assumption based planning, sequence thinking, adaptive planning. And they have views on when to make such decisions, when to do more research, how to respond, etc.
I think any thorough analysis of the options for addressing uncertainty/cluelessness really should draw on some of that literature (before dismissing options like “make bolder estimates” / “make the analysis more sophisticated”) . Otherwise it would be like trying to reinvent the wheel, suggesting it should be square and then concluding it cannot be done and wheels don’t work.
Hope that explains where I am coming from.
(PS. To reiterate, in Hilary’s defense, EAs reinvent wheels all the time. No1 top flaw and all that. I just think this specific case has lead to lots of confusion. Eg people thinking there is no good research into uncertainty management)
Thanks for the reply. Although this doesn’t resolve our disagreement, it helps to clarify it.
Thank you Pablo. Have edited my review. Hopefully it is fairer and more clear now. Thank you for the helpful feedback!!