Swimmer963 comments on To what degree do you model people as agents? - Less Wrong

34 Post author: Swimmer963 25 August 2013 07:29PM

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

Comments (130)

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

Comment author: Swimmer963 25 August 2013 01:43:13PM 12 points [-]

At this point, my efforts to taboo agenty thinking have been successful enough that I misinterpreted the first two paragraphs of this post. I thought it was about the distinction between people I model as full game-theoretic agents (I account for them accounting for my actions) versus people who will execute a fixed script without any reflective reasoning. To me, that's the difference between PCs and NPCs.

This is exactly the kind of other-people-thinking-differently-than-I-do interestingness that caused me to write this post!

The thing that was most interesting to me, on reflection, is that I do get angry less since I've started modelling most people "mechanically". It's jus that my brain doesn't automatically extend that to people whom I respect a lot for whatever reason. For them, I will get angry. Which isn't helpful, but it is informative. I think it might just show that I'm more surprised when people who I think of as PCs let me down, and that when I get angry, it's because I was relying on them and hadn't made fallback plans, so the anger is more just my anxiety about my plans no longer working.

Comment author: Lumifer 27 August 2013 05:47:24PM 5 points [-]

I do get angry less since I've started modelling most people "mechanically". It's jus that my brain doesn't automatically extend that to people whom I respect a lot for whatever reason.

It seems that once you assign specific people to the NPC category you think of them as belonging to a lesser, inferior kind. That's why you get less angry at them and that's why those you respect don't get assigned there.