= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Will_Sawin comments on When is further research needed? - 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 (80)
Here's the intuitive version:
Consider the set of all strategies, that is, functions from {possible sequences of observations} => {possible actions}
Each strategy has an expected utility.
Adding more information gets you more strategies, because all the old ones are still viable - you just ignore the new observation - and some additional strategies are viable.
Adding more options is never bad. (because the maximum of AuB is at least as big as the maximum of A)
Why was this downvoted?
I didn't downvote, or read the comment until just now for that matter, but perhaps someone had harmful options in mind.
Reviewing my post and the OP I realize it was never technically stated that the result only holds for idealized rationalists.
But of course that was implied. I don't THINK that's it, but it might have been.