timtyler 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. Show more comments above.

Comment author: timtyler 02 February 2013 12:32:53PM 1 point [-]

actually calling it a form of utility seems to imply a kind of agency that all the money-optimizers I can think of don't have.

You don't think economic systems have "agency"? Despite being made up of large numbers of humans and optimising computer systems?

Comment author: Nornagest 02 February 2013 08:06:55PM 0 points [-]

Not really, no. They have goals in the sense that aggregating their subunits' goals gives us something of nonzero magnitude, but their ability to make plans and act intentionally usually seems very limited compared to individual humans', never mind well-programmed software. Where we find exceptions, it's usually because of an exceptional human at the helm, which of course implies more humanlike and less money-optimizerlike behavior.

Comment author: timtyler 04 February 2013 12:31:44AM 2 points [-]

Where we find exceptions, it's usually because of an exceptional human at the helm, which of course implies more humanlike and less money-optimizerlike behavior.

Right. So, to a first approximation, humans make reasonable money-optimizers. Thus the "Homo economicus" model.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that companies have "agency". Companies are powerfully agent-like entities, complete with mission statements, contractual obligations and reputations. Their ability to make plans and act intentionally is often superhuman. Also, in many constitutuencies they are actually classified as legal persons.