Spurlock comments on Techniques for probability estimates - Less Wrong

58 Post author: Yvain 04 January 2011 11:38PM

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

Comments (58)

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

Comment author: Spurlock 06 January 2011 12:41:53AM 0 points [-]

Ah, I see then where we miscommunicated. I meant that I, not he, would be applying that reasoning. I strongly anticipate not being dead, and for the purposes of this bet (and only for this bet) don't care if I'm wrong about it. He would strongly anticipate being dead, and might therefore neglect the possibility that he'll have to suffer the consequences of whatever we're doing. My losing the bet is "protected" (in a rather dreary way), his isn't.

Obviously, I haven't worked out the details, and probably won't actually go around taking advantage of these people, but it occurred to me the other day while I was pondering how one should almost always be able to turn better-calibrated expectations into utility.

Comment author: scav 06 January 2011 02:13:52PM 1 point [-]

Obviously, I haven't worked out the details, and probably won't actually go around taking advantage of these people

Hey, they'd be happy enough to still be alive, and you could donate the proceeds to eradicating polio. But unfortunately you'd also be encouraging people to take existential threats less seriously in general, which may be a bad idea. I can't decide.

Anyway, good luck finding a believer in any kind of woo who is prepared to make a cash wager on a testable outcome. Think how quickly we would have eradicated homeopathy and astrology by now! :)