= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Bongo comments on A Thought on Pascal's Mugging - 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 (159)
Don't see how your idea defeats this:
Having a bounded utility function defeats that.
See Sewing-Machine's comment. The smallness of the probability isn't fixed, if the probability is controlled by complexity, and complexity controls utility.
More precisely, the probability that the mugger can produce arbitrary amounts of utility is dominated by (the probability that the mugger can produce more than N units of utility), for every N; and as the latter is arbitrarily small for N sufficiently large, the former must be zero.
Without invoking complexity, one can say that an agent is immune to this form of Pascal's mugging if, for fixed I, the quantity P(x amount of utility | I) goes to zero as x grows.
If the agent's utility function is such that "x amount of utility" entails "f(x) amount of complexity," f(x) --> infinity, then this will hold for priors that are sensitive to complexity.