Luke already wrote that there are at least four factors that feed motivation, and the expectation of success is only one of them. No amount of expectancy can increment drive if other factors are lacking, and as Eliezer notice, it’s not sane to expect only one factor to be 10x the others so that it alone powers the engine.
What Eliezer is asking is basicall if anyone has solved the basic coordination problem of mankind, and I think he knows very well that the answer to his question is no. Also, because we are operating in a relatively small mindspace (humans’ system 1), the fact that no one solved that problem in hundreds of thousands of years of cooperation points strongly toward the fact that such a solution doesn’t exist.
Venture Capital seems to be quite successful at finding startups to fund where the founder of the company has a chance of success of less then 30% and the founder still puts in incredibly hard work.
Most people aren’t startup founders but there are many people who want to fund startups and are okay with success chances of less then 30%.
There are a lot of coordination problems whereby you need to get people to get people do to things that are not in their own interest that you could also call “the basic coordination problem of mankind”.
Is it true that they’re ‘quite successful’? My impression was “yes, people succeed at this problem, but it’s still a hard problem and the resolution isn’t really an exact science.
I’m not aware of it being a problem that a lot of startup founders quit there startup because they lack motivation half a year after they get funding or even two years after they get funding.
You raise a good point about the multiple factors that go into motivation and why it’s important to address as many of them as possible.
I’m having trouble interpreting your second paragraph, though. Do you mean that humanity has a coordination problem because there is a great deal of useful work that people are not incentivized to do? Or are you using “coordination problem” in another sense?
I’m skeptical of the idea that a solution is unlikely just because people haven’t found it yet. There are thousands of problems that were only solved in the past few decades when the necessary tools were developed. Even now, most of humanity doesn’t have an understanding of whatever psychological or sociological knowledge may help with implementing a solution to this type of problem. Those who might have such an understanding aren’t yet in a position to implement it. It may just be that no one has succeeded in Doing the Impossible yet.
However, communities and community projects of varying types exist, and some have done so for millennia. That seems to me to serve as proof of concept on a smaller scale. Therefore, for some definitions of “coordinating mankind” I suspect the problem isn’t quite as insurmountable as it may look at first. It seems worth some quality time to me.
Luke already wrote that there are at least four factors that feed motivation, and the expectation of success is only one of them. No amount of expectancy can increment drive if other factors are lacking, and as Eliezer notice, it’s not sane to expect only one factor to be 10x the others so that it alone powers the engine.
What Eliezer is asking is basicall if anyone has solved the basic coordination problem of mankind, and I think he knows very well that the answer to his question is no. Also, because we are operating in a relatively small mindspace (humans’ system 1), the fact that no one solved that problem in hundreds of thousands of years of cooperation points strongly toward the fact that such a solution doesn’t exist.
Venture Capital seems to be quite successful at finding startups to fund where the founder of the company has a chance of success of less then 30% and the founder still puts in incredibly hard work.
Most people aren’t startup founders but there are many people who want to fund startups and are okay with success chances of less then 30%.
There are a lot of coordination problems whereby you need to get people to get people do to things that are not in their own interest that you could also call “the basic coordination problem of mankind”.
Is it true that they’re ‘quite successful’? My impression was “yes, people succeed at this problem, but it’s still a hard problem and the resolution isn’t really an exact science.
I’m not aware of it being a problem that a lot of startup founders quit there startup because they lack motivation half a year after they get funding or even two years after they get funding.
You raise a good point about the multiple factors that go into motivation and why it’s important to address as many of them as possible.
I’m having trouble interpreting your second paragraph, though. Do you mean that humanity has a coordination problem because there is a great deal of useful work that people are not incentivized to do? Or are you using “coordination problem” in another sense?
I’m skeptical of the idea that a solution is unlikely just because people haven’t found it yet. There are thousands of problems that were only solved in the past few decades when the necessary tools were developed. Even now, most of humanity doesn’t have an understanding of whatever psychological or sociological knowledge may help with implementing a solution to this type of problem. Those who might have such an understanding aren’t yet in a position to implement it. It may just be that no one has succeeded in Doing the Impossible yet.
However, communities and community projects of varying types exist, and some have done so for millennia. That seems to me to serve as proof of concept on a smaller scale. Therefore, for some definitions of “coordinating mankind” I suspect the problem isn’t quite as insurmountable as it may look at first. It seems worth some quality time to me.