gwern comments on Satisficers want to become maximisers - Less Wrong

21 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 21 October 2011 04:27PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (67)
Tags: ai satisficing utility_function maximising

Comments (67)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: gwern 21 October 2011 05:54:57PM 10 points [-]

If that were not the case, then the maximising agent would transform itself into a satisficing agent, but, (unless there are other agents out there penalising you for your internal processes), there is no better way of maximising the expected U than by attempting to maximise the expected U.

Is that really true? This seems to be the main and non-trivial question here, presented without proof. It seems to me that there ought to be plenty of strategies that a satisficer would prefer over a maximizer, just like risk-averse strategies differ from optimal risk-neutral strategies. eg. buying +EV lottery tickets might be a maximizer's strategy but not a satisficer.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 21 October 2011 06:38:34PM 1 point [-]

I reworded the passage to be:

How come this is true (apart from the special case when other agents penalise you specifically for being a maximiser)? Well, agent A will have to make decisions, and if it is a maximiser, will always make the decision that maximises expected utility. If it is a satisficer, it will sometimes not make the same decision, leading to lower expected utility in that case.

Yes, the satisficer can be more risk averse than the maximiser - but it's precisely that that makes a worse expected utility maximiser.

Comment author: gwern 21 October 2011 06:55:01PM 0 points [-]

OK, that makes more sense to me.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit