RichardKennaway comments on Rationality Quotes February 2014 - Less Wrong

5 [deleted] 02 February 2014 01:35PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (482)
Tags: quotes

Comments (482)

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

Comment author: RichardKennaway 14 February 2014 05:13:18PM 1 point [-]

I am happy to acknowledge that there is no end to the subjects that I have no right to an opinion on, because I haven't put in the time or effort to justify holding forth any position whatsoever.

I agree, but the first VNM axiom doesn't: totality of the preference ordering. Neither does Eliezer.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 14 February 2014 06:18:59PM 2 points [-]

I agree, but the first VNM axiom doesn't: totality of the preference ordering.

VNM agents are still allowed to be indifferent.

I like Robin Hanson's post about this. Or there's this quote in from Russell and Norvig:

Refusing to act is like refusing to allow time to pass

Comment author: gwern 15 February 2014 04:15:37AM 6 points [-]

The quote actually was about betting. From Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, by Russell & Norvig, on Dutch books:

One might think that this betting game is rather contrived. For example, what if one refuses to bet? Does that end the argument? The answer is that the betting game is an abstract model for decision-making situation in which every agent is unavoidably involved at every moment. Every action (including inaction) is a kind of bet, and every outcome can be seen as a payoff of the bet. Refusing to bet is like refusing to allow time to pass.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 15 February 2014 12:31:30PM *  1 point [-]

Thanks for the correction!

EDIT: My copy has "One can no more refuse to bet than one can refuse to allow time to pass." Different editions, I guess.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 14 February 2014 08:02:06PM 2 points [-]

VNM agents are still allowed to be indifferent.

They still have to know they're indifferent.

Comment author: jazmt 16 February 2014 01:10:29AM 1 point [-]

Why isn't saying "I don't know" a reasonable approach to the issue when ones knowledge is vague enough to be useless for knowledge (and can only be made useful if the case was a bizarre thought experiment), Just because one couldtheoretically bet on something doesn't mean one is in a position to bet. (For example to say that I don't know how to cure a disease so I will go to the doctor, or I don't know what that person's name is (even though I know it isn't "Xpchtl Vaaaaaarax") so I should ask someone, Or I don't know how life began. Or I don't know how many apples are on the tree outside (even though I know it isn't 100 million))

Comment author: [deleted] 15 February 2014 08:16:47AM 1 point [-]

The kind of people Desrtopa is talking about wouldn't be contented with answers such as “10 to 1000”.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit