My take on this is that the ideal version of this prize selects for both usefulness and counterfactualness, but selecting for counterfactualness without producing weird side effects seems hard. (I do think it’s worth spending an hour or two thinking about how to properly incentivize or reward counterfactualness, just, if you haven’t come up with anything, strictly rewarding quality/usefulness seems better)
I wouldn’t be in favor of adding explicit rules for goodheart related reasons. I think prizes and grants should have the minimum rules to account for basic logistics and the rest should be illegible.
My take on this is that the ideal version of this prize selects for both usefulness and counterfactualness, but selecting for counterfactualness without producing weird side effects seems hard. (I do think it’s worth spending an hour or two thinking about how to properly incentivize or reward counterfactualness, just, if you haven’t come up with anything, strictly rewarding quality/usefulness seems better)
> selecting for counterfactualness without producing weird side effects seems hard
agree, I just thought the winner in this case was over the top enough to not be in the fuzzy boundary but clearly on the other side.
Our rules don’t draw that boundary at the moment, and I’m not even sure how it could be phrased. Do you have any suggestions?
I wouldn’t be in favor of adding explicit rules for goodheart related reasons. I think prizes and grants should have the minimum rules to account for basic logistics and the rest should be illegible.
Ah, yeah that makes sense.