The entire argument of Inadequate Equilibria is that there are ways in which systems can be inadequate without being exploitable by relevant actors. Adequacy is a stronger condition than inexploitability, because all the latter requires is that all of the available free energy in the system has been consumed for any reason at all, whereas the former requires also that the energy consumed specifically translates to results in the real world.
In other words: no, it’s not always the case that being able to see things a large organization is doing wrong means “free money”. That line of thought is naive to the difference between adequacy and inexploitability.
It is a useful exercise to try to map any complaint that something sucks, or that “these people who are in charge are wrong”, into a business plan for making a profit by doing something better, and see what obstacles you hit. However, sometimes the obstacle is “The law forbids you from doing something better”.
For example, my contention is that the requirements for becoming a doctor in America are too high; that one could train slightly less intelligent people to do doctor-work, and certainly drop the requirement for a bachelor’s degree before going to medical school, and still get doctors who are more than good enough. (I’m not 100% sure that this requirement ultimately comes from the American Medical Association, but let’s say 75% sure.) How would I monetize it?
If you think you can beat the American __ Association over a long run average, that’s great news for you! That means free money!
Being right is super valuable, and you should monetize it immediately.
---
Anything else is just hot air.
The entire argument of Inadequate Equilibria is that there are ways in which systems can be inadequate without being exploitable by relevant actors. Adequacy is a stronger condition than inexploitability, because all the latter requires is that all of the available free energy in the system has been consumed for any reason at all, whereas the former requires also that the energy consumed specifically translates to results in the real world.
In other words: no, it’s not always the case that being able to see things a large organization is doing wrong means “free money”. That line of thought is naive to the difference between adequacy and inexploitability.
It is a useful exercise to try to map any complaint that something sucks, or that “these people who are in charge are wrong”, into a business plan for making a profit by doing something better, and see what obstacles you hit. However, sometimes the obstacle is “The law forbids you from doing something better”.
For example, my contention is that the requirements for becoming a doctor in America are too high; that one could train slightly less intelligent people to do doctor-work, and certainly drop the requirement for a bachelor’s degree before going to medical school, and still get doctors who are more than good enough. (I’m not 100% sure that this requirement ultimately comes from the American Medical Association, but let’s say 75% sure.) How would I monetize it?