You do it to the extend that you have a causal model in your head that links the two. If you take the issue of toxic pesticides, new pesticides got used and a lot of our bees died. Whether or not there’s a correlation is subject to public debate. That’s how real-world examples look like.
Why? Doesn’t goodharting require optimization?
Suppose a) the world was nuked, and b) everyone died. Would you call A the cause of B?
You do it to the extend that you have a causal model in your head that links the two. If you take the issue of toxic pesticides, new pesticides got used and a lot of our bees died. Whether or not there’s a correlation is subject to public debate. That’s how real-world examples look like.
Suppose a) the world was nuked, and b) everyone died. Would you call A the cause of B?
Editing posts afterwards to remove statements is not a great way to have rational debate.
It wasn’t removed, it was moved.
Suppose we jettisoned causality. What exactly do you think can, and cannot, be measured?