[HN Gopher] Algorithms to Live By - The Computer Science of Huma... ___________________________________________________________________ Algorithms to Live By - The Computer Science of Human Decisions Author : ingve Score : 200 points Date : 2022-12-28 15:25 UTC (2 days ago) (HTM) web link (blog.galowicz.de) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.galowicz.de) | QuantumSeed wrote: | Brian Christian, the author of "Algorithms to Live By", has also | written "The Alignment Problem" on the technical and moral | questions of A.I. | fumblebee wrote: | The Alignment Problem was a stand out read for me this year; it | should be required reading for anyone training and deploying ML | models. Incredibly well researched and chockablock with real | world examples. | gcanyon wrote: | In the section on over-fitting: | | "[...] focusing on production metrics led supervisors to neglect | maintenance and repairs, setting up future catastrophe. Such | problems can't simply be dismissed as a failure to achieve | management goals. Rather, they are the opposite: The ruthless and | clever optimization of the wrong thing." | | Southwest Airlines. | matsemann wrote: | This claims to be a review, but is mainly just a summary / | rehashing of the content. Feels a bit disingenuous. | | I can warmly recommend the book, though. | [deleted] | rel wrote: | Just want to give a quick shout out to coauthor Tom Griffiths for | being an amazing educator; I attended his class before this book | was published and was delighted when this book covered the | general ideas covered. I'm always happy to recommend it to others | looking to understand more about computer science in an | approachable way | sonabinu wrote: | This is a really insightful book. I read it as part of a book | club. The algorithm that generated the most delightful discussion | and examples was the optimal stopping algorithm. | gcanyon wrote: | For anyone who's curious, the 37% for optimal stopping is the | rounding of 1/e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem | shaftoe444 wrote: | Interesting article, I would recommend also reading Russ Robert's | 'Wild Problems', who makes the case that algorithms are a bad fit | for many of life's big decisions. | | Podcast and transcript on it here. https://www.econtalk.org/russ- | roberts-and-mike-munger-on-wil... | dinosaurdynasty wrote: | Isn't that just using the subconscious's algorithms instead of | the conscious's? | ssivark wrote: | Calling everything an algorithm rests on some implicit/vague | assumption of computational universality (that subsumes human | functioning!) which seems quite non-obvious. | | It's a useless (tautological) statement unless we start with | a good definition of what is and is not an "algorithm". From | a cursory glance, this seems trickier than it looks, and once | we have a constrained definition it's not clear any more that | human minds operate in the same framework (strong claims | require strong evidence). | | Eg: If we define algorithms as what can be implemented on a | Turing machine, then we're necessarily talking deterministic | algorithms (allowing pseudorandomness), etc. | shaftoe444 wrote: | Good way of putting it, when does an algorithm become a | heuristic? | | For me the key thing is that when something is too | complicated to quantify, attempting to quantify it will | result in worse decisions. A bit like Hayek's calculation | problem for the economy but for personal decisions. | oski wrote: | I'm curious to know if anyone has "implemented" any of these | approaches in their own life... | bumby wrote: | After reading the book, I use the exponential backoff approach | to relationships that seem one-sided. | pewpewyouhit wrote: | I apply some things from the explore/exploit chapter when | travelling. If for the first half of the trip I try as many | places to eat as I can. For the second half I'm fine with | revisiting the best ones. | [deleted] | huijzer wrote: | I often make estimations based on the heuristic that if we | don't know much about how long something will remain, then | we're most likely half way currently. For example, McDonalds | was founded 82 years ago and if we have to guess how long it | will still exist then probably around 82 years (until 2104). | | This also works great, for example, to answer whether you | should make plans for Christmas 2023 with the girl you have | been seeing for two months now: probably not yet. | greenpeas wrote: | What is your heuristics based on? | | Quite often though, you know a little about some thing. How | do you adjust your heuristics then? What about the job that I | started two months ago, should I expect to work there by | December 2023? If the US was founded in 1776, how long will | it still exist? | vcxy wrote: | The heuristic is that the average of an interval is the | middle. If you know nothing about it other than you're at | some point on the time interval, assuming you're at the | middle time is a good prior. | | When you know more, you certainly should adjust. For the | job example, you might think "how long have I usually | stayed jobs that have lasted least two months?", "how long | do people usually stay in jobs if they make it through the | first two months?". Generally speaking, Bayes' theorem is | the technical answer to "how do you adjust". Not that I | ever actually do that...but I think it's the technically | correct answer. | Bilal_io wrote: | Not OP and haven't read the book, but maybe this is more | about survival, if McDonald's survived 82 years, then we | can assume it can survive another 82, if you've been at the | job for 2 months and there are no signs of trouble, then | you can assume you'll survive another 2, reevaluate then to | conclude that you can survive another 4... | thenerdhead wrote: | I used the optimal stopping guidelines to help people I mentor | stop applying for jobs and change their resumes/approach. It | worked pretty well for them. | 0x4d464d48 wrote: | When dealing with particularly toxic people I find the | exponential backoff to be an excellent strategy. | | In my case, I hate cutting people off because I know people can | change. What I do to manage relationships is run a forgiving | version of exponential backoff. Start off friendly and | forgiving. If someone becomes transgressive, increase the | latency between interactions. If the transgressions continue, | double the latency. If bad interactions persist, the time | latency can go on to months or even years which means you'll | probably never interact with that person again. Conversely, if | an interaction goes well, reduce the delay for when you're | willing to meet again. E.g. say an irritating individual causes | the latency to go to once a month. If you have an interaction | that goes well then the latency drops to 2 weeks. If | interactions continue to go well they drop further to say no | latency, i.e. you're willing to meet this person whenever. | Obviously it's not perfect but it suites my needs quite well. | | I also found his chapter on "overfitting" excellent. I like to | think of it as "smart person disease." Big idea is that having | more data can actually hamper decision making instead of | enhance it because you winde up solving the wrong problem. | chasd00 wrote: | I read the book a while back and realized I do the caching one | automatically. I have a pretty messy work bench where I build | rockets and play around with microcontrollers. I purposely | didn't try to organize it because, over time, it organizes | itself. All the stuff that has my attention gradually drifts to | arms reach where the stuff I don't currently need gradually | drifts to the back of the workbench. | | Edit: the stopping and explore/exploit chapters mirror my | career too | Mezzie wrote: | I do the same. My other rule is that wherever I look for it | when I've lost it is where it belongs. | | It causes a fair amount of friction with housemates, though. | Have you figured out any way to alleviate that when it comes | to areas used by multiple people? | RheingoldRiver wrote: | That sounds like something I do; if I can't find something | I don't think "where should it be" but rather "if I were | going to put it down right now, where would I put it" | | Honestly, I'm still pretty shit at finding things, but this | strategy has helped considerably. | AmpsterMan wrote: | In some sense you have a race condition. By taking the item | and misplacing it, you've caused a deadlock. Solutions are | kinda the same: have a copy of the item for every person | that might use it, or be strict about freeing all locked | resources. | Mezzie wrote: | In my case the problem is that I need things to be where | they make sense for my brain or I lose them, and my | sister (who I live with) has the type of anxiety that | manifests as needing control over and having a 'tidy' | space. So it does end up in a deadlock because she wants | things all nice and 'organized' but then I can't see them | and have no idea where they are. | divan wrote: | I read the book around 3-4 years ago and regularly returning to | the exploit vs explore and randomness concepts. 37% rule is | something I regularly talk about as well, but mostly to help | other people make sense of the dilemmas "should I continue | looking or stop now" (like searching for a flat, for example). | fierro wrote: | I am currently 35% the way through of all my Hinge matches, | planning on proposing to the next girl I grab drinks with. | rperez333 wrote: | I've read years ago, and became my comfortable keeping my inbox | or my files become messier, relying more on the search. I wish | Google Desktop would still exist, however. | [deleted] | raydiatian wrote: | Wasn't that good of book, read it twice. | cratermoon wrote: | This image alone is worth the read https://giphy.com/gifs/funny- | how-task-iCFlLMvzDHIk0 | shubhamjain wrote: | > Other animal behavior also evokes TCP flow control, with its | characteristic sawtooth. Squirrels and pigeons going after human | food scraps will creep forward a step at a time, occasionally | leap back, then steadily creep forward again. | | > Caching gives us the language to understand what's happening. | We say "brain fart" when we should really say "cache miss". | | Sorry, but how can anyone find this book insightful? Doesn't it | sound dumb to anyone else? Seems as if the author made list of | bunch of algorithms and filled up hundreds of pages with lazy | analogies. Having read a bunch of similar books (classic self- | help crap), I must say that these books are a giant waste of | time. It reminds me of mental models. Reading about mental models | isn't going to magically make you smarter, you'll likely develop | on your own from experience. But hey, if it helps you, awesome. | Just giving my two cents as a person who has largely become | disillusioned with books like these. | AYBABTME wrote: | If you read it, you'll find it full of useful strategies to | leverage in making better decisions in your life. It's also | amusing for CS-educated folks because it's a fun application of | the material to everyday life. | [deleted] | matsemann wrote: | This isn't a self-help book, so your whole big rant misses the | mark. | leetcodesucks wrote: | [dead] | squidgyhead wrote: | Sounds like the author is slowly discovering micro economics? | O__________O wrote: | Optimal Stopping Problem always confused me, since it seems to | assume you're not aware of a meaningful measure of what an | optimal match would be, but aware of what the optimal set of | potential matches is. | | For example, say there's a goose looking for a mate and they only | look at geese of the opposite sex, but in fact, that specific | goose's optimal mate type is a black swan. Maybe it's just me, | but at the point you're able to limit yourself to a type of X | then you likely known Y are the attributes that best define it. | | Am I missing something other than the obvious point that as the | selector you aware of a finite set or the spectrum of quality | within it, but lack control over the order for which possible | candidates are presented for selection? | nighthawk454 wrote: | It's not about optimal matches at all - it's about when to stop | looking. | | The assumption is you don't known the set of potential matches, | or the order they come in, or anything really. But there is a | deadline for the decision (or a maximum number of attempts). So | how to balance making attempts to gather information with | committing to a final decision so you don't run out of time? | All else being equal, the rule is 1/e. Spend the first 37% of | your time/attempts gathering information, then commit to the | next option that's better than you've seen. | | This doesn't guarantee a good match (or even a match!) but | probabilistically the strategy is optimal. | fierro wrote: | exactly. The optimal stopping solution maximizes the | probability you find the best candidate. That probability | ends up being quite low, unfortunately. | maxminminmax wrote: | >but probabilistically the strategy is optimal. | | For what value function? It is basically never the case that | my value function is "all choices other than the optimal are | equally bad" -- which is what this rule is based on. | | As a personal opinion, this drives me up the wall. There is a | great problem here, and there is a whole area (several of | them, actually!) of applied math dedicated to it (Statistical | Decision Theory, Reinforcement Learning, you name it). | Instead we get this toy version -- which at best is an | oversimplified intro to he subject, and at worst an excuse to | bamboozle with math-fairy-dust -- brought out as some kind of | rule "to live by". Your algorithm is bad, and you should feel | bad. | taeric wrote: | I'm confused, isn't this literally one of the founding | problems to "Statistical Decision Theory"? | | That is, this may be a simplified version of the problem, | but it is a legit problem from that field. And the results | being presented here don't disagree with the legit problem, | do they? | | Now, is it a simplification of a simplification? Sure. I'm | not clear on why it is as bad as you are putting forth, | though. | bumby wrote: | I think they address this in a discussion about lacking full | information. | | _" We don't have an objective or preexisting sense of what | makes for a good or bad applicant; moreover, when we compare | two of them we know which of the two is better, but not by how | much."_ (p. 18) | | They then go on to explain stopping thresholds in the cases | when you do have full information. | chrisweekly wrote: | ATLB is such an interesting and worthwhile book. My note-taking | skills have improved a lot since I first read it maybe 6 or 7 | years ago... def time to revisit. | haffi112 wrote: | I also recommend other books by Brian Christan, especially the | Alignment Problem. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-30 23:00 UTC)