= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jsteinhardt comments on Model Uncertainty, Pascalian Reasoning and Utilitarianism - 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 (154)
But VNM utility is just one particularly unintuitive property of rational agents. (For instance, I would never ever use a utility function to represent the values of an AGI.) Surely we can talk about rational agents in other ways that are not so confusing?
Also, I don't think VNM utility takes into account things like bounded computational resources, although I could be wrong. Either way, just because something is mathematically proven to exist doesn't mean that we should have to use it.
Who is sure? If you're saying that, I hope you are. What do you propose?
I don't think anybody advocated what you're arguing against there.
The nearest thing I'm willing to argue for is that one of the following possibilities hold:
We use something that has been mathematically proven to exist, now.
We might be speaking nonsense, depending on whether the concepts we're using can be mathematically proven to make sense in the future.