= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
orthonormal comments on Is risk aversion really irrational ? - 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 (65)
You ruin the thought experiment by writing as if the difference between 0 and 1 paperclips is much worse than the difference between 1 and 4, in violation of the utility function you declared.
That was a pun to add some life to the experiment and make it less "boring" or "cold", but you're right that is just false. I changed it for a much lighter wording.
Yeah, the article would be far better if that were fixed. Utility functions are identical if you add any constant to them, or any positive multiplier.
Assuming Clippy can't owe paperclips (i.e., own a negative number), 0 paperclips minimizes his utility. So, I think the original sentence was OK, albeit overwrought.
Orthonormal is correct based on the very nature of 'utility'. The difference between 1 and 4 utility is three times worse than the difference between 0 and 1. Every single time and no matter what. That '0' or a minimum is involved is irrelevant. You cannot get diminishing marginal utility on utility itself.
The place for assigning extra importance to low values and zero is in the paperclip to utility translation and not the evaluation of how much you care about the utility.