caylus

Or the DMV. "The time people spend at our office is a good measure of whether we're delivering value to them."

> If it isn't smart enough to see that "don't turn humans into paperclips" is part of the context of "make more paperclips"

It'll see, but it won't care. See http://lesswrong.com/lw/igf/the_genie_knows_but_doesnt_care/

I've seen a few "Tinder for <X>" apps out there that try to emulate the swipe model for things like hiring, events, business connections, etc. I haven't found any of them useful; I think they overgeneralize the Tinder model.

Tinder works because the criteria the user is selecting for, physical attractiveness, really can be evaluated in a split second from a single photo.

On the other hand, the question of "do I want to hire this person" requires carefully evaluating their skills, credentials, education, location, availability. "Do I want to go to this event" depends on the kind of event, location, time, and other plans I might have that day. In both cases the photo is irrelevant. Once you have to look through each item for 10-20 seconds bare minimum, the Tinder model doesn't make sense anymore.

Another key UI consideration is filtering. In the hiring and events examples, you can easily filter algorithmically by skills, years of experience, event type, or location. But physical attractiveness can't be algorithmically filtered on. So Tinder occupies a unique niche where the selection criteria is 1) impossible to automate because it's vague and subjective but 2) easy for each individual user to evaluate in a split second.

I think there's a number of interpretations of the results:

1. Women suffer more "stress and anxiety", "difficult tradeoffs", "time constraints", "burden of responsibility" and "conflict with their life goals" (direct quotes from article) in the same jobs as men due to discrimination

2. Women suffer more of the above, but due to biological differences. IOW the same situations result in more stress for women than for men.

3. Women and men suffer the same amount of these but assign them higher weight in their decision-making process. IOW the same amount of stress is enough to dissuade a woman, but not a man, from taking a position, due to different life priorities.

> What we did is we had them predict on a zero to 10 scale how members of the opposite sex would rate them in terms of their attractiveness

> accuracy was not significantly better than chance

I think this experiment conflates people having different opinions on attractiveness with the inherent difficulty on mapping the attractiveness spectrum onto the scale of 1 to 10.

I'd be interested in an experiment that instead had participants order the attractiveness of many photos from most to least without assigning numbers to them. The photos should range from grotesque to average to supermodels. I think almost everyone would agree on the broad ordering, with some variation in exact ordering.

Then, to capture the personal aspect of the original experiment, subjects could insert themselves into the ranking and see if the opposite sex agrees. My hypothesis is that performance would be far better than chance in this scenario.