You (or, rather, Dr. Hanson) should definitely rename futarchy… I can’t stop thinking about it meaning rule of futanaris :D
On a more serious note, I think the allegory fails to disentangle the faults of Bayes’s Law being necessary to follow and the faults of the need to maintain the corresponding bureaucracy.
I think you are right. The allegory would have been stronger if those mistakes were more tightly connected.
Here is (I think) the reason why I wrote it the way I did. I was going for the analogy of a dogmatic bayesian AI (implemented as such in code) vs a more flexible AI. The dogmatic code takes longer to run in order to calculate an entirely coherent probability distribution, and also throws out some opportunities (such as not-dogmatically-bayesian “models” which correct calibration errors w/o being able to make predictions on their own).
So the unnecessary bureaucracy is a stand-in for the slowness, and throwing out uncertified traders is like throwing out useful but less-rigidly-bayesian models.
If I can think of a way to re-write it to address your critique, I will try.
You (or, rather, Dr. Hanson) should definitely rename futarchy… I can’t stop thinking about it meaning rule of futanaris :D
On a more serious note, I think the allegory fails to disentangle the faults of Bayes’s Law being necessary to follow and the faults of the need to maintain the corresponding bureaucracy.
I think you are right. The allegory would have been stronger if those mistakes were more tightly connected.
Here is (I think) the reason why I wrote it the way I did. I was going for the analogy of a dogmatic bayesian AI (implemented as such in code) vs a more flexible AI. The dogmatic code takes longer to run in order to calculate an entirely coherent probability distribution, and also throws out some opportunities (such as not-dogmatically-bayesian “models” which correct calibration errors w/o being able to make predictions on their own).
So the unnecessary bureaucracy is a stand-in for the slowness, and throwing out uncertified traders is like throwing out useful but less-rigidly-bayesian models.
If I can think of a way to re-write it to address your critique, I will try.