= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
private_messaging comments on You're Calling *Who* A Cult Leader? - 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 (112)
No, I am not. I am expecting that the mechanism you may use to determine expected utilities has low probability of validity (low external probability of argument, if you wish) and thus you should end up assigning very close expected utilities to the top charities, simply due to the discounting for your method imprecision. It has nothing to do with some true frequentist expected utilities that charities have.
You're essentially assuming that the variance of whatever prior you place on the utilities is very large in comparison to the differences between the expected utilities, which directly contradicts the assumption. Solve a different problem, get a different answer -- how is that a surprise?
Well at least you didn't accuse me of rationalizing, being high on drugs, having a love affair with Hanson, etc...