= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RichardKennaway comments on We Don't Have a Utility Function - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (123)
That's a silly assertion. A thermostat can be trivially modeled using a utility function. Positive utility for decresing temperatue when it is too high, and increasing it when it is too low. Zero utility for other behaviours. This is not a difficult case to understand.
Trivially. Quite. So trivially that anything at all can be "modelled" by a utility function at that level of triviality.
I've a great new utility-based model of the universe! The universe as it is has utility 1. Every other hypothetical universe has utility 0.
That's an Occam's razor fail, though. Explanations need to be concise to be satisfying. You'll find that, if you compress that utility function, you will be onto something interesting.