bounties are a good start but distributed unpaid work where even the correct solution might be rejected by the arbiter is a poor incentive method
this is masked by the fact that there is participation, but it’s excluding people that value their time. people possibly more skilled in solving the problem.
As noted in the article, challenges like these are not unusual at all in other fields, and the "distributed unpaid work" is not considered unethical, perhaps because (as with FOSS development) it is entirely voluntary. And opening it up to non-experts is the point, it's not a bug—if the non-experts can do what the experts can't, the experts are generally happy about it because they benefit from the results even if they don't win the prize.
let me merge it with your words: voluntary gambles exclude people that value their time, and waste the time of every party except the person chosen to be the winner
So your point was just to make two value-free observations about challenges? I interpreted your comment as implying they were exploitative and unfair. Thanks for clarifying that you aren't saying that.
I would make a small correction to your last message: challenges are not gambling in any sense of the word.
> I would make a small correction to your last message: challenges are not gambling in any sense of the word
okay, reworded since you are allergic to that one word: negative expected value games of chance exclude people that value their time who may be a lot more skilled given the validation of their time.
this is a large population and there exists other incentive model for even better results. hopefully people sit down and consider competing incentive models that work for this specific market.
If this knowledge is valuable, the best way to show a support for it is hiring somebody to work full time on this problem.
What we have is another case of "youngsters should work in science as volunteer with their parents money, so we don't need to pay for it".
In the best case one of them will produce a small result, hit the end-of-the-road signal and (most probably) will move away. The other try and quit after investing X hours by the small chance of future reward and none of the social benefits that came with real work.
My bet is that none of them will use that cash to pursue a career to turn into a professional in history. The real experts are getting very old and would need replacement, but if the job offer is the equivalent to "buy lottery tickets with your money and time with the hope to win 10k", it just can't compete. The real lottery requires only money and offers a bigger reward without effort.
Is a non efficient way to generate knowledge, because you are burning most of the talented people in the process, and is also anti-economical as a society.
"If this knowledge is valuable, the best way to show a support for it is hiring somebody to work full time on this problem."
Why not have both? I.e. academics and students dedicated to the fairly monastic career of being a professional historian (which I am), but also prizes which seek to bring in experts from other fields with different skillsets who may approach the problem in an original way.
Obviously there is a limited amount of funding for anything. But surely some of the billions being donated every year to the general funds of elite universities like Harvard would be better spent setting up specific, goal-oriented prizes modeled on the Vesuvius Challenge.
>> If this knowledge is valuable, the best way to show a support for it is hiring somebody to work full time on this problem.
Best for whom?
I'm not sure it's best for the employer since they then live or die based on the abilities, insight and inspiration of that one employee.
Equally, I'm not sure it's best for the employee who becomes singularly focused on that one problem to the exclusion of all others. If they want to diverge down an alternate path for a bit they (likely) cannot.
Of course in one sense work-for-prize is not efficient. We may as well argue that FOSS programing is not efficient. But FOSS exists not because of effeciency, but because it allows people to scratch an itch (usually unpaid.)
Prizes allow specific goals to be prioritised within that community. Say, for example, an expert at ocean currents notices a prize for decoding a historical text. Sounds like a fun hobby. Figures out that it contains tide tables.
Employment is clearly a good thing. Scanning in old archives could easily be done by an employee. But there's a place in the world for more than just formal employment. The existence of prizes does not negate employment. Rather it might attract folk into a "hobby" of sorts.
I think the ideal, in all fields, is to create a love of the field. Einstein wanted to be a physicist, but no university was interested in hiring him. So he went to work at a patent office, while continuing to pursue his love of physics. And that patent office is precisely where he would end up writing some of his most influential papers on a number of topics, including special relativity. In fact his paper on special relativity, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" offered exactly 0 academic references, but did cite his patent office coworker Michele Boso for assistance and suggestions.
So in modern times, are we creating a culture where people are going to be enamored by and intellectually curious about the past? Or one where people might have little interest in such or even regard it with disdain?
This solves the problem in two ways. The first is by creating people who will find a way to make things work, in spite of adversity. The other is by making your suggestion happen naturally. A person grows up with a love of history but, perhaps out of necessity, is unable to pursue it in earnest. However, they become successful in other fields, and then naturally choose to become a patron of their passion, for the next generation.
Based on pay in archaeology and history, the knowledge evidently is not valuable in the slightest.
Despite the Indiana Jones fantasy, Archaeologists typically live in their cars or in tents, and historians in an unheated hovel. If you’re at the top of your field, you can earn £40k.
Both are fields I am sincerely interested in, and was as a kid, but would never in a million years dream of working in, because I like having shelter and shoes and teeth.
>"buy lottery tickets with your money and time with the hope to win 10k", it just can't compete. The real lottery requires only money and offers a bigger reward without effort.
I mean the analogy doesn't really work because the calculation of the risk has to take into account number of people competing for prize.
Furthermore if you are going to do the lottery you only have chance to buy ticket, if you are going to compete for history prize you also have the importance of the idea you will demonstrate. Obviously people are apt to think their own ideas are really brilliant but that evaluation would go into deciding if it was useful to pursue that path.
But I would think winning this kind of thing might actually be more important not to be a historian but as a CV brightening bit for a job in a more lucrative field also requiring intellectual ability and analytical rigor.
> "youngsters should work in science as volunteer with their parents money, so we don't need to pay for it"
Not far removed from "We don't pay anything to our interns at our Manhattan offices, because it's such a great opportunity for them (and not incidentally it keeps out the lower classes)".
Ultimately, the NEH has been gutted, professional historians are in the firing line for conservatives, and the (admittedly reasonable) focus on university education as career development has truly destroyed history academia. Even Digital History work is barely funded. I've got a friend who has a PhD in history from a top department and the number of available Tenure Track positions in their field the year they graduated in the entire country was zero. Many of the history departments that I'm aware of are currently in a state of "we do not know if we will ever be able to hire a TT faculty member again."
These sorts of weird scrappy things are compromises that can hopefully help reinvigorate a culture appreciation for history and build collaboration with science and technology, which may provide enough interest to justify a bit more institutional funding.
I want history to be well funded. But it isn't. And it is perceived as an evil discipline by a stunning portion of our voting population. This weird side stuff helps.
But I think this news is important for another reason, too. It’s strong evidence that cash prizes — even relatively modest ones like $10,000 — are effective in producing new historical knowledge.
$10k modest? I think that is more than most bug bounties, even quite serious ones. Part of the reason the payouts are low or why this is not done more often, is because there is too much work involved relative to to the opportunity cost. It's basic econ. The $40k prize for deciphering a word was an especially 'good deal' but most prizes are worse. It's also cheaper to have an expert on payroll doing work everyday than one-time payouts.
Well, I mean, that’s probably about 2 weeks of work at contractor rates. Not that much in the grand scheme of things. Especially when you’re only paying for wins, not attempts
I don't think the examples given by the author are good ones (although I don't entirely reject the conclusion).
Doing what is essentially advanced computer vision is a very different type of problem from decoding Linear A.
The Herculaneum Scrolls are a case where we have a relatively self-contained source of information and we "just" need technical skills, which historians probably lack, to extract it.
Deciphering Linear A or the Indus Valley script is a case where the information is simply not available in any given artifact (or any set of artifacts that someone can study in a short period). No amount of technical prowess or brilliance from an "outsider" is gonna magically add that information.
The only way you can hope to unravel that mystery is with deep expertise in the archaeologal and linguistic CONTEXT. That takes years or decades to build up. Which irequires exactly the opposite kind of funding: stable employment in an opportunity-rich environment. Not a one-off prize.
Cash prizes are not a good way of funding most things. If you can't afford to spend time on something that will most likely fail, a cash prize won't change that.
Also, if the cash prize is what motivates people, they'll be less willing to cooperate and share progress.
To be honest I think the prestiege and the CV line item is the main motivation for the kids that solve these problems (beyond it just being an interesting problem of course). The existence of the cash prize probably works more as cheap PR, making sure news of the competition reaches them.
(I'm saying "$10k to your favourite charity" would work almost as well as "$10k for you").
Is that supposed to be a C, or a terminal Sigma? I don't read Greek well at all, let alone any variety of ancient Greek, but that's not a letter in the alphabet the way I learned it.
31 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 72.4 ms ] threadFirst word discovered in unopened Herculaneum scroll by CS student - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37857417 - Oct 2023 (207 comments)
this is masked by the fact that there is participation, but it’s excluding people that value their time. people possibly more skilled in solving the problem.
let me merge it with your words: voluntary gambles exclude people that value their time, and waste the time of every party except the person chosen to be the winner
I would make a small correction to your last message: challenges are not gambling in any sense of the word.
okay, reworded since you are allergic to that one word: negative expected value games of chance exclude people that value their time who may be a lot more skilled given the validation of their time.
this is a large population and there exists other incentive model for even better results. hopefully people sit down and consider competing incentive models that work for this specific market.
What we have is another case of "youngsters should work in science as volunteer with their parents money, so we don't need to pay for it".
In the best case one of them will produce a small result, hit the end-of-the-road signal and (most probably) will move away. The other try and quit after investing X hours by the small chance of future reward and none of the social benefits that came with real work.
My bet is that none of them will use that cash to pursue a career to turn into a professional in history. The real experts are getting very old and would need replacement, but if the job offer is the equivalent to "buy lottery tickets with your money and time with the hope to win 10k", it just can't compete. The real lottery requires only money and offers a bigger reward without effort.
Is a non efficient way to generate knowledge, because you are burning most of the talented people in the process, and is also anti-economical as a society.
Why not have both? I.e. academics and students dedicated to the fairly monastic career of being a professional historian (which I am), but also prizes which seek to bring in experts from other fields with different skillsets who may approach the problem in an original way.
Obviously there is a limited amount of funding for anything. But surely some of the billions being donated every year to the general funds of elite universities like Harvard would be better spent setting up specific, goal-oriented prizes modeled on the Vesuvius Challenge.
Best for whom?
I'm not sure it's best for the employer since they then live or die based on the abilities, insight and inspiration of that one employee.
Equally, I'm not sure it's best for the employee who becomes singularly focused on that one problem to the exclusion of all others. If they want to diverge down an alternate path for a bit they (likely) cannot.
Of course in one sense work-for-prize is not efficient. We may as well argue that FOSS programing is not efficient. But FOSS exists not because of effeciency, but because it allows people to scratch an itch (usually unpaid.)
Prizes allow specific goals to be prioritised within that community. Say, for example, an expert at ocean currents notices a prize for decoding a historical text. Sounds like a fun hobby. Figures out that it contains tide tables.
Employment is clearly a good thing. Scanning in old archives could easily be done by an employee. But there's a place in the world for more than just formal employment. The existence of prizes does not negate employment. Rather it might attract folk into a "hobby" of sorts.
So in modern times, are we creating a culture where people are going to be enamored by and intellectually curious about the past? Or one where people might have little interest in such or even regard it with disdain?
This solves the problem in two ways. The first is by creating people who will find a way to make things work, in spite of adversity. The other is by making your suggestion happen naturally. A person grows up with a love of history but, perhaps out of necessity, is unable to pursue it in earnest. However, they become successful in other fields, and then naturally choose to become a patron of their passion, for the next generation.
Despite the Indiana Jones fantasy, Archaeologists typically live in their cars or in tents, and historians in an unheated hovel. If you’re at the top of your field, you can earn £40k.
Both are fields I am sincerely interested in, and was as a kid, but would never in a million years dream of working in, because I like having shelter and shoes and teeth.
I mean the analogy doesn't really work because the calculation of the risk has to take into account number of people competing for prize.
Furthermore if you are going to do the lottery you only have chance to buy ticket, if you are going to compete for history prize you also have the importance of the idea you will demonstrate. Obviously people are apt to think their own ideas are really brilliant but that evaluation would go into deciding if it was useful to pursue that path.
But I would think winning this kind of thing might actually be more important not to be a historian but as a CV brightening bit for a job in a more lucrative field also requiring intellectual ability and analytical rigor.
Not far removed from "We don't pay anything to our interns at our Manhattan offices, because it's such a great opportunity for them (and not incidentally it keeps out the lower classes)".
These sorts of weird scrappy things are compromises that can hopefully help reinvigorate a culture appreciation for history and build collaboration with science and technology, which may provide enough interest to justify a bit more institutional funding.
I want history to be well funded. But it isn't. And it is perceived as an evil discipline by a stunning portion of our voting population. This weird side stuff helps.
$10k modest? I think that is more than most bug bounties, even quite serious ones. Part of the reason the payouts are low or why this is not done more often, is because there is too much work involved relative to to the opportunity cost. It's basic econ. The $40k prize for deciphering a word was an especially 'good deal' but most prizes are worse. It's also cheaper to have an expert on payroll doing work everyday than one-time payouts.
That’s far too much IMO.
Doing what is essentially advanced computer vision is a very different type of problem from decoding Linear A.
The Herculaneum Scrolls are a case where we have a relatively self-contained source of information and we "just" need technical skills, which historians probably lack, to extract it.
Deciphering Linear A or the Indus Valley script is a case where the information is simply not available in any given artifact (or any set of artifacts that someone can study in a short period). No amount of technical prowess or brilliance from an "outsider" is gonna magically add that information.
The only way you can hope to unravel that mystery is with deep expertise in the archaeologal and linguistic CONTEXT. That takes years or decades to build up. Which irequires exactly the opposite kind of funding: stable employment in an opportunity-rich environment. Not a one-off prize.
Also, if the cash prize is what motivates people, they'll be less willing to cooperate and share progress.
(I'm saying "$10k to your favourite charity" would work almost as well as "$10k for you").