= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Caspian comments on Gains from trade: Slug versus Galaxy - how much would I give up to control you? - 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 (67)
Why? If you can end up on either end of a long line segment, then you have a chance of winning a lot or losing a lot. But you shouldn't be risk averse with your utility - risk aversion should already be included. So "towards the middle" is no better in expectation than "right end or left end".
Maybe you're thinking we shouldn't be maximising expected utility? I'm actually quite sympathetic to that view...
And with complex real world valuations (eg anything with a diminishing marginal utility), then any Pareto line segments are likely to be short.
Nonlinear utility functions (as a function of resources) do not accurately model human risk aversion. That could imply that we should either change our (or they/their) risk aversion or not be maximising expected utility.
Nonlinear jumps in utility from different amounts of a resource seem common for humans at least at some points in time. Example: Either I have enough to pay off the loan shark, or he'll break my legs.
Yep. Humans are not expected utility maximisers. But there's strong arguments that an AI would be...