Kirjailijakuva
1 Work 54 jäsentä 2 arvostelua

Tietoja tekijästä

Includes the name: Kenneth O. O. Stanley

Tekijän teokset

Merkitty avainsanalla

Yleistieto

Kanoninen nimi
Stanley, Kenneth O.

Jäseniä

Kirja-arvosteluja

Stanley and Lehman explore the myth of the objective. When we focus on ambitious objectives—concrete, specific goals—we are setting ourselves up for failure. Objectives can be useful when we're looking at changes that are adjacent to where we already are. However, when our goal is major innovation, objectives actively hinder progress. The path between where we are today and the objective is often indirect and may require moving away from a seemingly direct path.

The authors refer to these intermediate discoveries as stepping stones. The myth of the objective assumes that the best way to pursue an objective is to follow the stepping stones that are nearest to the ultimate goal: the objective becomes the objective function. But this is like trying to go through a maze by always taking the path that points toward the exit. The true path is much more roundabout. The objective is a false compass.

This might not be so bad if we had good visibility of the possible paths between here and there. However, to continue with the stepping stone metaphor, these stepping stones are in a foggy landscape. The objective is tempting because we cannot see the full set of paths available to us. We want some way to navigate through the fog. However, as the authors emphasize, following a false compass is no better than not having one. Although I find their claim about objectives as a false compass compelling in the end, I did find the argument itself to be fairly weak. It was mostly argued from example and focused rather too much on the exact paths by which innovations were reached: sure, our path to computers involved vacuum tubes, but that doesn't mean that vacuum tubes were the only path to computers (especially given that we didn't stay at vacuum tubes).

If objectives provide a false compass, what are we to do? Do we just wander around randomly and hope for good luck? No. We can be more intentional than that. The authors encourage us to utilize non-objective search. Instead of measuring progress against a destination, exploration is driven by some measurement relative to the present.

This measurement has two parts. First, there are constraints or backstops. Some paths should be avoided because we cannot actually make our way through them. Constraints include physical laws (e.g., the speed of light), continued ability to participate (an organism that dies too quickly can't reproduce), and domain specific requirements (medicine should not do harm). Constraints tell you where not to go. Second, there should be something points us in a direction. The authors are particularly fond of novelty search, which follows the direction that is most interesting (for some domain relevant definition of interesting). The important part is that both constraints and guiding principles are relative to the present, not to some unrealized future state. From here, don't go a direction that will kill you. From here, go the direction which looks the most interesting.

This general idea is not completely incompatible with objectives. The authors argue convincingly that we shouldn't use objectives as objective functions, as the measure of which direction is best to go. That will cause us to miss necessary detours. However, can't we use objectives as part of a more nuanced guiding methodology? The authors encourage us to completely abandon objectives. Instead of trying to have any control over the direction we go, if we want to be innovative, we should become treasure hunters. We should always follow the path that is the most interesting. That path may lead us places that are incredibly innovative, but we won't know where we are going in advance.

I didn't find this part of the argument completely compelling.Overall, I still feel like objectives can be useful. I agree that treasure hunting is one way to innovate. It may be the only way to achieve truly groundbreaking innovations. However, there is a spectrum between objective-friendly adjacent inventions and major innovation. Even if we cannot achieve an objective in full, the interesting things we discovery on the way will likely be more aligned with the goal of the objective than if we just wander about following what is interesting or novel—even if we can't solve world hunger, trying is likely to at least reduce hunger. The problems come when we conflate objectives—places we want to go—with objective functions—measures of how close we are to being there.

However, I do agree that objectives make terrible fitness functions. If we measure progress only by measuring distance from the ideal, then we'll likely get stuck at a boring dead end. I agree with the fundamental assertion that when we are determining which next step to take, we should use an objective function that measure progress relative to where we are now, not relative to some particular place we want to be.

Maybe instead of objectives we can think of north stars. A north star is something which guides your direction. It is not a destination you can ever reach. A north star reduces the number of next steps to consider. Since we never expect to reach a north star, we don't measure success against the north star. Rather, we measure success by what we achieved while going that direction. Let's replace the objective, in the negative sense used in this book, with the north star. Let's allow ourselves to wander, and also allow ourselves a general direction to that wandering. Perhaps Stanley and Lehman might say that makes a north star more like a constraint, something which defines which directions not to go. However, I think that the positive framing of a north star is more inspiring than a constraint.

Despite the fact that this book was not as well argued as I would like, I believe that it was worth the read because it caused me to think more deeply about objectives rather than just blindly accepting them as the way things should be done.
… (lisätietoja)
 
Merkitty asiattomaksi
eri_kars | 1 muu arvostelu | Jul 10, 2022 |
Read this on a friend's recommendation. The title is a bit clickbait-y, but the author is very careful to qualify his claims.

The main message is that, when faced with complicated problems, singlemindedly going after an objective can and will get you stuck in dead ends. He argues that since complicated problems don't have an obvious solution it's very likely that the next towards the solution is not actually directly closer to your objective. Makes sense to me - I think my main takeaway is to think about whether an objective makes sense in the individual situations I run into.

There are some pretty interesting thought experiments in here, and a fun new way to look at decision-making - while at some points I felt like this book dragged (the middle), it's very short and skimmable. Definitely worth a read.
… (lisätietoja)
 
Merkitty asiattomaksi
haagen_daz | 1 muu arvostelu | Jun 6, 2019 |

You May Also Like

Associated Authors

Tilastot

Teokset
1
Jäseniä
54
Suosituimmuussija
#299,230
Arvio (tähdet)
½ 3.4
Kirja-arvosteluja
2
ISBN:t
2

Taulukot ja kaaviot