= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nick_Tarleton comments on Applying utility functions to humans considered harmful - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (114)
I do think that it's longer than necessary, and that the central point as stated in the title is far more important than the details of the seven theories. Still, I wish I could upvote it more than once, since that central point is really important. (Or at least it really annoys me when people talk as if humans did have utility functions.)
Agreed, but I'd say that people do have a utility function -- it's just that it may be so complex that it's better seen as a kind of metaphor than as a mathematical construct you can actual do something with.
I share your annoyance -- there seems to be a bias among some to use maths-derived language where it is not very helpful.
If utility isn't a mathematical construct you can do something with, then it's an empty concept.
You might still be able to determine a manageable utility function for a lower animal. For humans it's simply too complex -- at least in 2010, just like the function that predicts next week's weather.
I will believe this only when I see it done.
I do not expect to see it done, no matter how low the animal.