I'm not sure it is "better". I can't speak for the utilitarians ... or anyone
actually. But *my* motive is that if there are no alternatives, you have no choice to go
with the only solution you have. So I like having alternatives. Utilitarianism is
idealistic in the assumption that they have some solution, or that a solution even
exists. Alternatives outcome measures seem to widen agency and the universe of discourse.
On 2/15/22 14:23, Marcus Daniels wrote:
What's the motive though? To minimize discontent when a distribution is estimated
& asserted for the purposes of decision making? How is it better than a
struggle for power with winners and losers?
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 2:16 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] by any means necessary
I was thinking more in terms of an aggregation over Kullback-Lielber or
Jensen-Shannon pairwise measures. But it could also be something like a
steadily running clustering algorithm that wouldn't retain any given flattened
result, but would rather track a 2nd order tendency of the flattened results.
Using a clustering algorithm that regularly tosses out some of the subjective
perspectives, revolving some in, some out, some in, etc. might provide less
flattening without giving up the computational convenience of the flattening.
Of course, you run the risk of tyranny of the majority with any clustering
method. I don't know what what to do about that except with some sort of
round-robin inclusion of the leaves, adding an uncertainty to the trajectory.
On 2/15/22 14:04, Marcus Daniels wrote:
A flattening function of `variance', would prefer inter-subjective consistency.
A flattening function of `sum' would select for best subjective outcome for
the most people. One could probably invent a many-body utility function from
the ground up too.
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 1:51 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] by any means necessary
Well, you're right that inter-subjectivity is not identical to objectivity. But it's not
quite right to say that the intersubjective is merely subjective. All that's needed to
communicate that difference is the blind men and the elephant story. You don't need the
source code for the functions if you can cross-validate them "enough". More
technically, it's useful to compare interpretable ML with explainable ML. One may be
enough for credibility in some uses but inadequate in others. And one might ask whether
iML is really all that interpretable if the interpretability falls away with scale *or*
the accuracy falls away without scale.
On 2/15/22 13:44, Marcus Daniels wrote:
A calculus that invokes subjective interpretations of outcomes is itself
subjective. To make it objective, it would be necessary to draw conclusions
from the outcomes and not from black-box subjective functions. The source code
for the functions needs to be shared.
--
glen
When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
