= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
nyan_sandwich comments on An Attempt at Preference Uncertainty Using VNM - 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 (33)
Hmm. I'll have to take a closer look at that. You mean that the uncertainties are correlated, right?
Can you show where you got that? My impression was that once we got to the set of (equivalent, only difference is scale) utility functions, averaging them just works without room for more fine-tuning.
But as I said, that part is shaky because I haven't actually supported those intuitions with any particular assumptions. We'll see what happens when we build it up from more solid ideas.
No. To quote your own post:
I meant that the utility function resulting from averaging over your uncertainty over the km's will depend on which km you chose to arbitrarily set in this way. I gave an example of this phenomenon in my original comment.
Oh sorry. I get what you mean now. Thanks.
I'll have to think about that and see where the mistake is. That's pretty serious, though.