wedrifid comments on Bayesian Adjustment Does Not Defeat Existential Risk Charity - Less Wrong

43 Post author: steven0461 17 March 2013 08:50AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (89)

Comments (89)

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

Comment author: private_messaging 15 March 2013 06:25:33AM 2 points [-]

The much bigger issue is that for some anthropogenic risk (such as AI), the risk is caused by people, and can be increased by funding some groups of people. The expected utility thus has both positive and negative terms, and if you generate a biased list (e.g. by listening to what organization says about itself), and sum it, the resulting sum tells you nothing about the sign of expected utility.

Comment author: wedrifid 15 March 2013 06:40:03AM *  1 point [-]

The expected utility thus has both positive and negative terms, and if you generate a biased list (e.g. by listening to what organization says about itself), and sum it, the resulting sum tells you nothing about the sign of expected utility.

It tells you something about the sign of the expected utility. It is still evidence. Sometimes it could even be evidence in favor of the expected utility being negative.

Comment author: private_messaging 15 March 2013 07:37:51AM 0 points [-]

Given other knowledge, yes.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit