thomblake comments on Maximizing Cost-effectiveness via Critical Inquiry - Less Wrong

20 Post author: HoldenKarnofsky 10 November 2011 07:25PM

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

Comments (24)

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

Comment author: thomblake 13 November 2011 05:24:44PM *  1 point [-]

0 shouldn't be assigned as a probability if you're going to do Bayesian updates. That doesn't interfere with the necessity of using 0 when assigning probabilities to continuous distributions, as any evidence you have in practice will be at a particular precision.

For example, say the time it takes to complete a task is x. You might assign a probability of 20% that the task is finished between 2.3 and 2.4 seconds, with an even distribution between. Then, the probability that it is exactly 2.35 seconds is 0; however, the measured time might be 2.3500 seconds to the precision of your timing device, whose prior probability would be .02%.

Edit: I need a linter for these comments. Where's the warning "x was declared but never used"?

Comment author: Armok_GoB 13 November 2011 09:08:43PM 0 points [-]

I know that. But any possible interval must be non-zero.

Also, some exact numbers are exceptions, depending on how you measure things: for example, there is a possibility the "task" "takes" EXACTLY 0 seconds, because it was already done. For example, sorting something that was already in the right order. (In some contexts. In other contexts it might be a negative time, or how long it took to check that it really was already done, or something like that)

Infinite utility seems like it might be a similar case.