GuySrinivasan comments on Real-Life Anthropic Weirdness - Less Wrong

24 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 05 April 2009 10:26PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (86)
Tags: lottery anthropic qti mwi

Comments (86)

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

Comment author: GuySrinivasan 06 April 2009 05:48:39PM 5 points [-]

"That implies that one does not calculate expected utility."

My impression has been that Eliezer means X and writes "Y" where Y could be interpreted to mean that Eliezer means either X or Z, you say "Eliezer means Z which implies this other obviously wrong thing", and then Eliezer becomes upset because you have misinterpreted him and you become upset because he is ignoring your noting of the ambiguity of "Y". Then hilarity is spawned.

A data point for ya.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 06 April 2009 05:55:26PM 4 points [-]

Ambiguities can simply be asked. I might or might not answer depending on whether I had time. Speaking for a person is a different matter.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 06 April 2009 08:46:24PM *  5 points [-]

The comment that started this now-tedious thread said:

When you said that, it seemed to me that you were saying that you shouldn't play the lottery even if the expected payoff - or even the expected utility - were positive, because the payoff would happen so rarely.

Does that mean you have a formulation for rational behavior that maximizes something other than expected utility? Some nonlinear way of summing the utility from all possible worlds?

Sounds like asking to me. I clearly was not claiming to know what you were thinking.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit