RolfAndreassen comments on No independence of irrelevant alternatives (picture proof) - Less Wrong

7 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 03 May 2012 05:48PM

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: RolfAndreassen 04 May 2012 09:43:00PM *  0 points [-]

The point is that if the transformation that Stuart uses were applied to a single agent, it would convert a coherent utility function into an incoherent one; therefore it cannot demonstrate anything about the incoherence of combined utility functions. It is too general - in fact, it is a Fully General Counterargument to the existence of utility functions with more than one input. It could well be the case that independent agents cannot have a coherent combined utility function, but this argument does not demonstrate it unless you also wish to assert that single-agent utility functions cannot consist of linear additions of sub-utilities.

Comment author: JGWeissman 04 May 2012 09:51:50PM 2 points [-]

in fact, it is a Fully General Counterargument to the existence of utility functions with more than one input

No, it's not, because it is not even talking about a utility function with more than one input. It is talking about two completely seperate utility functions. A single utility function with multiple inputs has to include a scaling between the inputs and therefore is not described by Stuart's argument, which exploits the lack of such scaling between two seperate utility functions.