My guess is it matters a lot, even if people aspire towards independence. I would update if someone has a long track record of clearly neutral-seeming reports for financial compensation, but I think in the absence of such a track record, my prior would be that people are very rarely capable of making strong negative public statements about people who are paying them.
I do think that helps, but I don’t think it helps that much. People don’t pursue super naive CDT-ish decision theories.
In-practice this shakes out in a feeling of being indebted to whoever pays you and a pretty strong hesitation to do something that would upset them, even if they weren’t going to pay you more anyways. Also, few games are actually really only single-iteration. You will likely continue interacting in one way or another, and Arb will interact with other clients, making this have more of an iterated nature.
I agree. I also expect evaluators commissioned to do an evaluation to rarely dare to speak up against the organisation whose folks they chatted with and gave them money. I wished it was different, but got to be realistic here.
My guess is it matters a lot, even if people aspire towards independence. I would update if someone has a long track record of clearly neutral-seeming reports for financial compensation, but I think in the absence of such a track record, my prior would be that people are very rarely capable of making strong negative public statements about people who are paying them.
This is a one of thing though. We’re not likely to continue to pay them, regardless of what they report.
I do think that helps, but I don’t think it helps that much. People don’t pursue super naive CDT-ish decision theories.
In-practice this shakes out in a feeling of being indebted to whoever pays you and a pretty strong hesitation to do something that would upset them, even if they weren’t going to pay you more anyways. Also, few games are actually really only single-iteration. You will likely continue interacting in one way or another, and Arb will interact with other clients, making this have more of an iterated nature.
This is an incisive description, and I agree.
I agree. I also expect evaluators commissioned to do an evaluation to rarely dare to speak up against the organisation whose folks they chatted with and gave them money. I wished it was different, but got to be realistic here.