RichardKennaway comments on Why the beliefs/values dichotomy? - Less Wrong

20 Post author: Wei_Dai 20 October 2009 04:35PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (153)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 27 October 2009 08:42:13AM 1 point [-]

The Pythagorean theorem is "tautological" too - but that doesn't mean it is not useful.

What's that, weak Bayesian evidence that tautological, epiphenomenal utility functions are useful?

Decomposing an agent into its utility function and its beliefs tells you which part of the agent is fixed, and which part is subject to environmental influences.

Supposing for the sake of argument that there even is any such thing as a utility function, both it and beliefs are subject to environmental influences. No part of any biological agent is fixed. As for man-made ones, they are constituted however they were designed, which may or may not include utility functions and beliefs. Show me this decomposition for a thermostat, which you keep on claiming has a utility function, but which you have still not exhibited.

What you do changes who you are. Is your utility function the same as it was ten years ago? Twenty? Thirty? Yesterday? Before you were born?

Comment author: timtyler 27 October 2009 06:58:22PM -1 points [-]

Thanks for your questions. However, this discussion seems to have grown too tedious and boring to continue - bye.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 28 October 2009 11:02:51AM *  0 points [-]

Thanks for your questions. However, this discussion seems to have grown too tedious and boring to continue - bye.

Well, quite. Starting from here the conversation went:

"They exist."

"Show me."

"They exist."

"Show me."

"They exist."

"Show me."

"Kthxbye."

It would have been more interesting if you had shown the utility functions that you claim these simple systems embody. At the moment they look like invisible dragons.