[HN Gopher] The Modern Curse of Overoptimization
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Modern Curse of Overoptimization
        
       Author : jger15
       Score  : 25 points
       Date   : 2024-05-03 15:23 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (freddiedeboer.substack.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (freddiedeboer.substack.com)
        
       | DarkNova6 wrote:
       | A much more interesting article than the title alone alludes to
       | (unrelated to code).
       | 
       | See his definition of overoptimization:
       | 
       | > My current working definition of overoptimization goes like
       | this: overoptimization has occurred when the introduction of
       | immense amounts of information into a human system produces
       | conditions that allow for some players within that system to
       | maximize their comparative advantage, without overtly breaking
       | the rules, in a way that (intentional or not) creates meaningful
       | negative social consequences. I want to argue that many human
       | systems in the 2020s have become overoptimized in this way, and
       | that the social ramifications are often bad
        
         | pixl97 wrote:
         | >without overtly breaking the rules
         | 
         | Well, I'd add, and break the rules (Realpage).
         | 
         | I'd say the modern system is closer to a perfect information
         | system, but asymmetries in that system allow the players
         | capable of raising the most capital to purchase any players
         | that are undercapitalized. With the consolidation of players
         | and the dependence on overcapitalization the remaining players
         | in the market keep prices high via instantly communicated
         | retail prices on websites. Lowering prices will most likely not
         | gain long term customers, only short term customers feeding on
         | the lower prices, and will likely lead to reduced profitability
         | for that quarter.
        
       | JZL003 wrote:
       | Another example which I once posed to a regulator, is satellite
       | information as public permitted insider trading. There are firms
       | who buy satellites imagery (only available commerically, or even
       | paying for a satellite to go to certain locations) to look at the
       | shadows oil storage containers. You can see the relative levels
       | of oil storage to predict the oil market. This is vaguely
       | solvable by adding a false ceiling
       | 
       | But more pernicious, check target parking lots to see how full
       | they are, to predict approximate target's profit before their
       | quarterly releases.
       | 
       | Nominally this is totally public knowledge, but unless you can
       | afford to pay for commercial imagery (or rent where it points)
       | you would never know. Is that really a public market with
       | globally relatively-equivalent knowledge
        
         | tekne wrote:
         | Counterpoint: isn't this exactly the _point_ of high-medium
         | frequency trading (vs. investment) in the first place? That is,
         | to incentivize people to search for and analyze information in
         | a novel fashion and provide this information to the market
         | through pricing? I feel insider trading itself is not an
         | equality problem, but rather a conflict-of-interest problem,
         | after all (especially if it's, e.g., someone working at a
         | regulator doing the insider trading).
        
       | pixl97 wrote:
       | Not mentioned here: Realpage. Things like this have worked to tip
       | the power of information towards the landlord and with collusion
       | raise the price of rentals for everyone.
       | 
       | But on to the first point of the article. Back in the early 2000s
       | used to shop stores, especially Goodwill and hock the stuff out
       | on ebay. It's nearly impossible to do that for two reasons now.
       | One, goodwill will sell the product online for closer to optimal
       | price taking as much profit as possible, or Two, the employees
       | there snag any decent items they get and sell them online.
        
       | 0dte wrote:
       | I disagree with the author's first point-that the decrease in
       | profitability of eBay middlemen due to more efficient algorithmic
       | arbitrageurs is an example of overoptimization, creating negative
       | social consequences through "hurting buyers by eliminating
       | uncertainty that sometimes results in lower-than-optimal-to-
       | sellers prices."
       | 
       | In this example, these "lower-than-optimal" prices weren't passed
       | on to the end consumers in the first place-instead, arbitrageurs
       | like the author's friend would take advantage of them to gain a
       | profit. The end prices that the average, uninformed buyer would
       | see would therefore be inflated, with traders like the author's
       | friend taking their cut.
       | 
       | Sure, the rise of more efficient, algorithmic players decreased
       | the profitability of less sophisticated middlemen like the
       | author's friend. But, since these algorithmic players were more
       | efficient, they were able to take less of a cut, leading to lower
       | prices (and overall benefit) for the average buyer.
        
       | koliber wrote:
       | The author observes a phenomenon that is definitely happening but
       | calls it an incorrect name. It's not over optimization. People
       | are becoming richer and more people want access to things that
       | were once exclusive. More people can afford that as well. Whether
       | you call it "things got less expensive" or "more people got
       | richer" is relative. The point is more people are competing for
       | fewer resources.
       | 
       | The author makes this sound like a bad thing. Often it does feel
       | like that. On the other hand, more people are able to spend
       | leisure time in places that were once only accessible to the
       | rich. Is that bad? Not in my book. Does it cause crowds when
       | taking the coveted Santorini sunset photo? You betcha.
        
       | mst wrote:
       | The tinder guide link shows an interesting failure mode (if true)
       | -
       | 
       | It ranks more attractive men higher
       | 
       | Women see those first
       | 
       | The most attractive men are mostly there for casual sex
       | 
       | They get so many matches they can afford to be blatant and not
       | necessarily polite
       | 
       | Women there for relationships get tired of being hit on for
       | casual sex
       | 
       | Men lower down the attractiveness range but actually wanting a
       | relationship are never seen by those women unless they swipe past
       | the hot mansluts
       | 
       | Men ignored, the women who might have been interested in them
       | leave
       | 
       | (the author of said link is pretty clear he thinks this sucks for
       | everybody and thinks it's entirely fair for the women to bail out
       | on their crap experience, so ... plausible)
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-05-03 23:02 UTC)