JMiller comments on Pinpointing Utility - Less Wrong

57 [deleted] 01 February 2013 03:58AM

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

Comments (154)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: JMiller 25 January 2013 02:47:40PM *  1 point [-]

Thanks nyan, this was really helpful in comprehending what you told me last time. So if I understand you correctly, utilities are both subjective and descriptive. They only identify what a particular single agent actually prefers under uncertain conditions. Is this right? If so, how do we take into account situations where one is not sure what one wants? Being turned into a whale might be as awesome as being turned into a gryphon, but since you don't (presumably) know what either would be like, how do you calculate your expected payoff?

Comment author: [deleted] 25 January 2013 03:21:39PM *  3 points [-]

Can you link me to or in some way dereference "what I told you last time"?

one is not sure what one wants? how do you calculate your expected payoff?

If you have a probability distribution over possible utility values or something, I don't know what to do with it. It's a type error to aggregate utilities from different utility functions, so don't do that. That's the moral uncertainty problem, and I don't think there's a satisfactory solution yet. Though Bostrom or someone might have done some good work on it that I haven't seen.

For now, it probably works to guess at how good it seems relative to other things. Sometimes breaking it down into a more detailed scenario helps, looking at it a few different ways, etc. Fundamentally though, I don't know. Maximizing EU without a real utility function is hard. Moral philosophy is hard.

Comment author: JMiller 25 January 2013 03:56:02PM *  1 point [-]

My bad, nyan.

You were explaining to me the difference between utility in Decision theory and utility in utilitarianism. I will try to find the thread later.

Thanks.

Comment author: shminux 25 January 2013 06:16:44PM 1 point [-]

Being turned into a hale [sic] might be as awesome as being turned into a gryphon

Are all those ostensibly unintentional typos an inside joke of some kind?

Comment author: JMiller 25 January 2013 07:07:25PM 1 point [-]

No, they are due solely to autocorrect, sloppy writing and haste. I will try to be more careful, apologies.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 January 2013 10:44:45PM 3 points [-]

You know you can go back and fix them right?

Comment author: JMiller 26 January 2013 02:21:18AM 3 points [-]

Done.

Comment author: deathpigeon 27 January 2013 04:32:40AM 0 points [-]

...Am I the only who is wondering how being turned into a hale would even work and whether or not that would be awesome?

Probably not possible since it isn't even a noun.