timtyler comments on Applying utility functions to humans considered harmful - Less Wrong

26 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 03 February 2010 07:22PM

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

Comments (114)

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

Comment author: timtyler 04 February 2010 08:40:52PM *  0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Cyan 04 February 2010 09:04:19PM *  1 point [-]

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

It is this simplicity that makes the utility-based framework such an excellent general purpose model of goal-directed agents

is vacuous: goal-directed agents attempt to optimize something by definition.

Comment author: timtyler 04 February 2010 09:13:12PM *  0 points [-]

There's already a word for that: "optimand".

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.

Comment author: Cyan 04 February 2010 09:17:48PM *  0 points [-]

That would be the "other concept" (link edited to point to specific subsection of linked article) referred to in the grandparent.

Comment author: timtyler 04 February 2010 09:14:18PM *  -1 points [-]

Not "vacuous" - true. We have people saying that utility-based frameworks are "harmful". That needs correcting, is all.

Comment author: Cyan 04 February 2010 09:20:00PM *  0 points [-]

I suspect that by "utility-based frameworks" they mean something more specific than you do.

Comment author: timtyler 04 February 2010 09:45:15PM -1 points [-]

Maybe - but if suspicions are all you have, then someone is not being clear - and I don't think it is me.

Comment author: Cyan 04 February 2010 10:00:53PM *  2 points [-]

I find it hilarious that you think you're being perfectly clear and yet cannot be bothered to employ standard terminology.