“arbitrary” is doing a lot of work here. If it’s agent-chosen specificity/completeness, that IS ALREADY a game, with exceptioncrafting just a move within in it. If the arbitrariness is randomly or “naturally” distributed, replace “gamability” with “engineering” and “exceptioncraft” with “craft”.
Recognizing adversarial (including semi-cooperative and mixed sequences of cooperative/adversarial) situations is a big modeling hole in many rationalists’ worldviews.
Funny that you think gameability is closer to engineering; I had it in mind that exceptioncraft was closer. To my mind, gameability is more like rules-lawyering the letter of the law, whereas exceptioncraft relies on the spirit of the law. Syntactic vs semantic kinda situation.
Exceptioncraft is seeking results within a set of constraints that don’t make the path to those results obvious. Engineering and gaming are just other words for understanding the constraints deeply enough to find the paths to desired (by the engineer) results.
Powered heavier-than-air flight is gaming the rules of physics, utilizing non-obvious aerodynamic properties to overcome gravity. Using hold-to-maturity accounting to bypass rules on risk/capitalization is financial engineering in search of profits.
The words you choose are political, with embedded intentional beliefs, not definitional and objective about the actions themselves.
Engineering and gaming are just other words for understanding the constraints deeply enough to find the paths to desired (by the engineer) results.
Yes.
The words you choose are political, with embedded intentional beliefs, not definitional and objective about the actions themselves.
Well now that was out of left-field! People don’t normally say that without having a broader disagreement at play. I suppose you have a more-objective reform-to-my-words prepared to offer me? My point about the letter of the law being more superficial than the spirit seems like a robust observation, and I think my choice of words accurately, impartially, and non-misleadingly preserves that observation;
until you have a specific argument against the objectivity, your response amounts to an ambiguously adversarially-worded request to imagine I was systematically wrong and report back my change of mind. I would like you to point my imagination in a promising direction; a direction that seems promising for producing a shift in belief.
“arbitrary” is doing a lot of work here. If it’s agent-chosen specificity/completeness, that IS ALREADY a game, with exceptioncrafting just a move within in it. If the arbitrariness is randomly or “naturally” distributed, replace “gamability” with “engineering” and “exceptioncraft” with “craft”.
Recognizing adversarial (including semi-cooperative and mixed sequences of cooperative/adversarial) situations is a big modeling hole in many rationalists’ worldviews.
Funny that you think gameability is closer to engineering; I had it in mind that exceptioncraft was closer. To my mind, gameability is more like rules-lawyering the letter of the law, whereas exceptioncraft relies on the spirit of the law. Syntactic vs semantic kinda situation.
Exceptioncraft is seeking results within a set of constraints that don’t make the path to those results obvious. Engineering and gaming are just other words for understanding the constraints deeply enough to find the paths to desired (by the engineer) results.
Powered heavier-than-air flight is gaming the rules of physics, utilizing non-obvious aerodynamic properties to overcome gravity. Using hold-to-maturity accounting to bypass rules on risk/capitalization is financial engineering in search of profits.
The words you choose are political, with embedded intentional beliefs, not definitional and objective about the actions themselves.
Yes.
Well now that was out of left-field! People don’t normally say that without having a broader disagreement at play. I suppose you have a more-objective reform-to-my-words prepared to offer me? My point about the letter of the law being more superficial than the spirit seems like a robust observation, and I think my choice of words accurately, impartially, and non-misleadingly preserves that observation;
until you have a specific argument against the objectivity, your response amounts to an ambiguously adversarially-worded request to imagine I was systematically wrong and report back my change of mind. I would like you to point my imagination in a promising direction; a direction that seems promising for producing a shift in belief.
Yeah, I suspect we mostly agree, and I apologize for looking to find points of contention.