Nick_Tarleton comments on Why you must maximize expected utility - Less Wrong

20 Post author: Benja 13 December 2012 01:11AM

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

Comments (75)

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

Comment author: Benja 13 December 2012 12:14:10AM *  4 points [-]

Meditation: So far, we've always pretended that you only face one choice, at one point in time. But not only is there a way to apply our theory to repeated interactions with the environment — there are two!

One way is to say that at each point in time, you should apply decision theory to set of actions you can perform at that point. Now, the actual outcome depends of course not only on what you do now, but also on what you do later; but you know that you'll still use decision theory later, so you can foresee what you will do in any possible future situation, and take it into account when computing what action you should choose now.

The second way is to make a choice only once, not between the actions you can take at that point in time, but between complete plans — giant lookup tables — which specify how you will behave in any situation you might possibly face. Thus, you simply do your expected utility calculation once, and then stick with the plan you have decided on.

Which of these is the right thing to do, if you have a perfect Bayesian genie and you want steer the future in some particular direction? (Does it even make a difference which one you use?)

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 14 December 2012 04:01:34AM 2 points [-]

"Apply decision theory to the set of actions you can perform at that point" is underspecified — are you computing counterfactuals the way CDT does, or EDT, TDT, etc?

This question sounds like a fuzzier way of asking which decision theory to use, but maybe I've missed the point.