V_V comments on Tell Culture - Less Wrong

109 Post author: BrienneYudkowsky 18 January 2014 08:13PM

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

Comments (217)

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

Comment author: V_V 01 February 2014 09:19:23AM 0 points [-]

First off, you said it was unstable, which means there would have to be positive feedback to make it UN-stable.

You don't need a positive feedback to have instability.

Secondly, it seems to me that there is a source of negative feedback in that if people want to be able to express stronger preferences themselves, they might tolerate stronger preferences expressed from others.

Which means that there is an incentive to overstate preferences.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 01 February 2014 08:49:26PM 0 points [-]

You don't need a positive feedback to have instability.

Yes you do. Like, rigid pendulum at the top of its swing, F = +kx. That's positive feedback. I suppose you can get around this requirement with discrete timesteps or other hackery, but classically speaking positive feedback <-> instability.

Which means that there is an incentive to overstate preferences.

... differentially so, from a starting point of understated preferences, so that's a correcting change.

Comment author: V_V 02 February 2014 01:49:19AM 0 points [-]

classically speaking positive feedback <-> instability.

an unbiased random walk sufficies.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 02 February 2014 04:13:06PM *  2 points [-]

Okay, so that's the definition of 'unstable' you were using. You've now taken care of the nitpick and left the main thrust of the argument unaddressed.

(edited for spelling)

Comment author: V_V 02 February 2014 06:04:36PM 0 points [-]

Can you rephrase the the main thrust of the argument?

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 03 February 2014 02:50:47PM 0 points [-]

All right. To keep it from ending up at the leaf of this back-and-forth, I'll edit-to-add it earlier on.