Desrtopa comments on Doublethink (Choosing to be Biased) - Less Wrong

33 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 September 2007 08:05PM

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

Comments (161)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: MoreOn 14 December 2010 05:14:06AM 0 points [-]

I considered your point at length. To address your comment, I could use the ignorance hypothesis on my old model, assigning equal probability values to everything between 1.7 and 4.0. Discrete if need be. I could use a binary output value as "enjoying the party," 1 or 0. I could do lots of other tweaks.

But the problem here is, everything comes down to whether this model (or any other 5-minute model) is good enough to explain my non-rationalist gut feeling, especially without an experiment. And, you know, I'm not about to fail an easy exam in a couple of days just to see what my utility function would do.

Comment author: Desrtopa 14 December 2010 06:58:17AM 1 point [-]

Conservation of expected evidence means that ideally, you can't expect the introduction of new evidence to affect your expected utility. In practice, that's probably not the case, but humans aren't even rough approximations of ideal rationalists.