My gut feeling is that attracting more attention to a metric, no matter how good, will inevitably Goodhart it. The current karma system lives happily in the background, and people have not attempted to game it much since the days of Eugine_Nier. I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve, and whether your cure will not be worse than the disease.
My gut feeling is that attracting more attention to a metric, no matter how good, will inevitably Goodhart it.
That is a good gut feeling to have, and Goodhart certainly does need to be invoked in the discussion. But the proposal is about using a different metric with a (perhaps) higher level of attention directed towards it, not just directing more attention to the same metric. Different metrics create different incentive landscapes to optimizers (LessWrongers, in this case), and not all incentive landscapes are equal relative to the goal of a Good LessWrong Community (whatever that means).
I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve, and whether your cure will not be worse than the disease.
This last sentence comes across as particularly low-effort, given that the post lists 10 dimensions along which it claims karma has problems, and then evaluates the proposed system relative to karma along those same dimensions.
My gut feeling is that attracting more attention to a metric, no matter how good, will inevitably Goodhart it. The current karma system lives happily in the background, and people have not attempted to game it much since the days of Eugine_Nier. I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve, and whether your cure will not be worse than the disease.
That is a good gut feeling to have, and Goodhart certainly does need to be invoked in the discussion. But the proposal is about using a different metric with a (perhaps) higher level of attention directed towards it, not just directing more attention to the same metric. Different metrics create different incentive landscapes to optimizers (LessWrongers, in this case), and not all incentive landscapes are equal relative to the goal of a Good LessWrong Community (whatever that means).
This last sentence comes across as particularly low-effort, given that the post lists 10 dimensions along which it claims karma has problems, and then evaluates the proposed system relative to karma along those same dimensions.
I don’t think the problem is that people try to game it, but that it’s flawed (in the many ways the post describes) even when people try to be honest.