timtyler 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.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (114)
You mean like the principle of least action...? ...or like the maximum entropy principle...?
Slapping the label "utility" on any quantity optimized in any situation adds zero content.
It is not supposed to. "Utility" in such contexts just means "that which is optimized". It is terminology.
"That which is optimized" is a mouthful - "utility" is shorter.
There's already a word for that: "optimand". The latter is the better terminology because (i) science-y types familiar with the "-and" suffix will instantly understand it and (ii) it's not in a name collision with another concept.
If "utility" is just terminology for "that which is optimized", then
is vacuous: goal-directed agents attempt to optimize something by definition.
Right - but you can't say "expected optimand maximiser". There is a loooong history of using the term "utility" in this context in economics. Think you have better terminology? Go for it - but so far, I don't see much of a case.
That would be the "other concept" (link edited to point to specific subsection of linked article) referred to in the grandparent.
Not "vacuous" - true. We have people saying that utility-based frameworks are "harmful". That needs correcting, is all.
I suspect that by "utility-based frameworks" they mean something more specific than you do.
Maybe - but if suspicions are all you have, then someone is not being clear - and I don't think it is me.
I find it hilarious that you think you're being perfectly clear and yet cannot be bothered to employ standard terminology.