Luke_A_Somers comments on Defining a limited satisficer - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 11 March 2015 02:23PM

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

Comments (11)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 11 March 2015 06:20:02PM 2 points [-]

I generally think of satisficing being a local property of a utility function. I may want to maximize my utility, but locally speaking I am indifferent among many, many things, so I satisfice in respect to those things.

I think that looking at it in this way might be more productive.

Aside from that,

Would not effectively aid M(u), a u-maximiser. Would not effectively resist M(-u), a u-minimizer.

It is likely to do the former up to a point, and would certainly do the latter after a point. As Vaniver noted, you haven't specified that point.

Comment author: Dagon 11 March 2015 07:37:43PM 1 point [-]

Quite agreed. A satisficer is an agent with a negative term in their utility function for disruption and effort. It's not limiting it's utility, it's limited in how much stuff it can do without reducing utility.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 13 March 2015 12:17:13PM 1 point [-]

Dagon, despite agreeing, you seem to be saying the opposite to LukeASomers (and your position is closer to mine).