= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
djcb 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)
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.