Strange7 comments on Rationality Quotes August 2012 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Alejandro1 03 August 2012 03:33PM

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

Comments (426)

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

Comment author: Strange7 22 August 2012 12:18:26AM -1 points [-]

On most of the existing things in the modern universe, it outputs 'don't care', like for dirt.

What do you mean, you don't care about dirt? I care about dirt! Dirt is where we get most of our food, and humans need food to live. Maybe interstellar hydrogen would be a better example of something you're indifferent to? 10^17 kg of interstellar hydrogen disappearing would be an inconsequential flicker if we noticed it at all, whereas the loss of an equal mass of arable soil would be an extinction-level event.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 August 2012 01:47:09AM 9 points [-]

I care about the future consequences of dirt, but not the dirt itself.

(For the love of Belldandy, you people...)

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 22 August 2012 12:23:26AM 3 points [-]

What do you mean, you don't care about dirt?

He means that he doesn't care about dirt for its own sake (e.g. like he cares about other sentient beings for their own sakes).

Comment author: Strange7 22 August 2012 12:32:30AM 0 points [-]

Yes, and I'm arguing that it has instrumental value anyway. A well-thought-out utility function should reflect that sort of thing.

Comment author: earthwormchuck163 22 August 2012 03:35:16AM 2 points [-]

Instrumental values are just subgoals that appear when you form plans to achieve your terminal values. They aren't supposed to be reflected in your utility function. That is a type error plain and simple.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 August 2012 09:58:11AM 1 point [-]

For agents with bounded computational resources, I'm not sure that's the case. I don't terminally value money at all, but I pretend I do as a computational approximation because it'd be too expensive for me to run an expected utility calculation over all things I could possibly buy whenever I'm consider gaining or losing money in exchange for something else.

Comment author: earthwormchuck163 22 August 2012 09:23:20PM 2 points [-]

I thought that was what I just said...

Comment author: [deleted] 22 August 2012 10:39:04PM *  1 point [-]

An approximation is not necessarily a type error.

Comment author: earthwormchuck163 23 August 2012 01:05:56AM 2 points [-]

No, but mistaking your approximation for the thing you are approximating is.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 August 2012 12:05:45AM 2 points [-]

That one is. Instrumental values do not go in utility function. You use instrumental values to shortcut complex utility calculations, but utility calculating shortcut != component of utility function.