timtyler comments on Model Uncertainty, Pascalian Reasoning and Utilitarianism - Less Wrong

23 Post author: multifoliaterose 14 June 2011 03:19AM

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

Comments (154)

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

Comment author: timtyler 16 June 2011 08:10:28PM *  0 points [-]

Dewey says pretty plainly: "any agents can be written in O-maximizer form".

O-maximisers are just plain old utility maximisers. Dewey rechristens them "Observation-Utility Maximizers" in his reworked paper.

He makes an O-maximiser from an agent, A. Once you have the corresponding O-maximiser, the agent A could be discarded.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 17 June 2011 08:11:27AM 0 points [-]

Dewey says pretty plainly: "any agents can be written in O-maximizer form".

I know that he says that. I am saying, I thought pretty plainly, that I disagree with him.

He makes an O-maximiser from an agent, A. Once you have the corresponding O-maximiser, the agent A could be discarded.

He only does that in the earlier paper. His construction is as I described it: define O as doing whatever A does and label the result with utility 1. A is a part of O and cannot be discarded. He even calls this construction trivial himself, but underrates its triviality.

Comment author: timtyler 17 June 2011 07:50:17PM *  1 point [-]

I don't really understand which problem you are raising. If the O eventually contains a simulated copy of A - so what? O is still a utililty-maximiser that behaves the same way that A does if placed in the same environment.

The idea of a utility maximiser as used here is that it assigns utilities to all its possible actions and then chooses the action with the highest utility. O does that - so it qualifies as a utililty-maximiser.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 19 June 2011 03:47:51PM 0 points [-]

The idea of a utility maximiser as used here is that it assigns utilities to all its possible actions and then chooses the action with the highest utility. O does that - so it qualifies as a utililty-maximiser.

O doesn't assign utilities to its actions and then choose the best. It chooses its action (by simulating A), labels it with utility 1, and chooses to perform the action it just chose. The last two steps are irrelevant.

Comment author: timtyler 19 June 2011 04:22:45PM *  1 point [-]

O doesn't assign utilities to its actions and then choose the best. It chooses its action (by simulating A), labels it with utility 1, and chooses to perform the action it just chose. The last two steps are irrelevant.

"Irrelevant"? If it didin't perform those steps, it wouldn't be a utility maximiser, and then the proof that you can build a utility maximiser which behaves like any computable agent wouldn't go through. Those steps are an important part of the reason for exhibiting this construction in the first place.