In zero-sum games, it can be the case that short term profit is the winning choice. One example is Go.
When AlphaGo was created and got good enough to beat world champion Go players, it did so largely by making moves that seemed to humans to be wildly aggressive and focused on small territorial positions (the game is won by surrounding territory and secondarily by capturing pieces, which reduces the opponents score). These small, highly territorial moves tend to force the human to respond locally, preventing big strategic moves, and then the AI just maintains its aggressive posture, keeping the human on defense while the AI keeps making points.
Most humans would have ignored these small battles for territory and focused on larger, more “strategic” moves that gain regional “influence” or help create opportunities to score more points down the line. But the computer’s moves were “correct” in the sense that they won games against the best players in the world.
BUT there’s a reason AplhaGo isn’t allowed in tournaments, for instance. So if the goal of AlphaGo was something like “be the top rated Go player”, it would have failed dramatically since it can’tplay in ranked tournaments.
Long story short, if you’re optimizing for 1 variable, like points/wins/money, it may be only logical move to focus on aggressive incremental gains that give up other strategic objectives. So, Google is optimizing for something that is clearly incorrect from the perspective of providing the best service - but likely correct from the perspective of making the most money even at the cost of the service being worse. And Google has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits, basically guaranteeing this type of behavior
And Google has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits, basically guaranteeing this type of behavior
This is simply not true. Per the us Supreme Court, “Modern corporate law does not require for profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else”. On top of that, even if the standard did apply, doesn’t ensuring the long term interests of a company provide more total profit? Maximization is an inherently difficult standard to enshrine in the law.
Yeah that is technically true in that the law doesn’tsay that verbatim, but long term profitability is the goal since that is what is in the best interest of shareholders. The actual language is:
Duty of Obedience - basically CEO needs to do what the board and bylaws dictate
Duty of Information - don’t mislead shareholders
Duty of Loyalty - put shareholders’ interests first. Meaning long term profitability
Duty of Care - make business decisions with necessary forethought and planning, don’t be negligent.
This is basically interpreted as ensuring the long-term financial success of the company. Long term financial success = maximizing profit. Profit allows you to expand and make more profit. Therefore profit is the primary goal.
Saying profitability isn’t what the law dictates is sort of like “civil war wasn’t about slavery, it was about states rights”. To do what? Own slaves. “A public corporation’s fiduciary duty to investors doesn’t mandate profit-seeking, just acting in their best interests.” And their best interests are…? Profitability.
You started by claiming maximizing short term profits was required and now you are claiming maximizing long term profits are required. On top of that you keep claiming profitability has to be maximized even though that isn’t stated anywhere. While you may insist on hallucinating standards that don’t exist it isn’t even possible to determine if any action maximizes profitability.
In zero-sum games, it can be the case that short term profit is the winning choice. One example is Go.
When AlphaGo was created and got good enough to beat world champion Go players, it did so largely by making moves that seemed to humans to be wildly aggressive and focused on small territorial positions (the game is won by surrounding territory and secondarily by capturing pieces, which reduces the opponents score). These small, highly territorial moves tend to force the human to respond locally, preventing big strategic moves, and then the AI just maintains its aggressive posture, keeping the human on defense while the AI keeps making points.
Most humans would have ignored these small battles for territory and focused on larger, more “strategic” moves that gain regional “influence” or help create opportunities to score more points down the line. But the computer’s moves were “correct” in the sense that they won games against the best players in the world.
BUT there’s a reason AplhaGo isn’t allowed in tournaments, for instance. So if the goal of AlphaGo was something like “be the top rated Go player”, it would have failed dramatically since it can’tplay in ranked tournaments.
Long story short, if you’re optimizing for 1 variable, like points/wins/money, it may be only logical move to focus on aggressive incremental gains that give up other strategic objectives. So, Google is optimizing for something that is clearly incorrect from the perspective of providing the best service - but likely correct from the perspective of making the most money even at the cost of the service being worse. And Google has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits, basically guaranteeing this type of behavior
Obviously it is logical and works, it’s literally what’s happening now. The question was never if it works, but if it’s morally right to do it.
Read. I said it is a bad goal for them to have, but the system requires them to have it.
It is a weird reaction to be surprised or indignant that a corporation would do this. It is literally their job and why the profit motive is bad.
This is simply not true. Per the us Supreme Court, “Modern corporate law does not require for profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else”. On top of that, even if the standard did apply, doesn’t ensuring the long term interests of a company provide more total profit? Maximization is an inherently difficult standard to enshrine in the law.
Yeah that is technically true in that the law doesn’tsay that verbatim, but long term profitability is the goal since that is what is in the best interest of shareholders. The actual language is:
Duty of Obedience - basically CEO needs to do what the board and bylaws dictate
Duty of Information - don’t mislead shareholders
Duty of Loyalty - put shareholders’ interests first. Meaning long term profitability
Duty of Care - make business decisions with necessary forethought and planning, don’t be negligent.
This is basically interpreted as ensuring the long-term financial success of the company. Long term financial success = maximizing profit. Profit allows you to expand and make more profit. Therefore profit is the primary goal.
Saying profitability isn’t what the law dictates is sort of like “civil war wasn’t about slavery, it was about states rights”. To do what? Own slaves. “A public corporation’s fiduciary duty to investors doesn’t mandate profit-seeking, just acting in their best interests.” And their best interests are…? Profitability.
https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/fiduciary-duty-to-investors
You started by claiming maximizing short term profits was required and now you are claiming maximizing long term profits are required. On top of that you keep claiming profitability has to be maximized even though that isn’t stated anywhere. While you may insist on hallucinating standards that don’t exist it isn’t even possible to determine if any action maximizes profitability.
That just means the judiciary won’t punish you, but the shareholders certainly will.
Yet another justification for enabling psychopaths.