= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
prase comments on What Cost for Irrationality? - 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 (113)
Human beings don't eat money. Your utility/money curve depends on the prices of things you can buy with the money, and the relative utilities of those things. Both factors can vary widely. I know no law of nature saying a $1000 gadget can't give you more than twice the utility of a $500 gadget. For the most direct example, the $1000 gadget could be some kind of money-printing device (e.g. a degree of higher education).
This can explain locally convex curves. But is it imaginable to have a convex curve globally?
It's imaginable for an AI to have such a curve, but implausible for a human having a globally convex curve.
That's what I think. Anything is imaginable for AI.
Yes. y = log(x) is convex globally. A logarithmic utility function makes sense if you think of each additional dollar being worth an amount inversely proportional to what you have already.
No, your example is concave. The above posters were referring to functions with positive second derivative.
The mnemonic I was taught is "conve^x like e^x"
I learned "concave up" like e^x and "concave down" like log x.
How in jubbly jibblies did this get voted down? The obvious way to resolve the ambiguity in "convex" and "concave" for functions is to also specify a direction.
It might be downvoted because it specifies "concave up" and then "concave down".