Alicorn comments on The "Intuitions" Behind "Utilitarianism" - Less Wrong

29 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 28 January 2008 04:29PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (193)
Tags: bayesian morality philosophy

Comments (193)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: Alicorn 24 February 2012 05:55:27AM *  3 points [-]

Okay, and I imagine this would incentivize assassins, but how is this helping society be pretty swell for most people, and what is the one guy's job exactly? (Can you not bet on the deaths of arbitrary people, only people it is bad to have around? Is the one guy supposed to determine who it's bad to have around or something and only allow bets on those folks? How does he determine that, if so?)

Comment author: [deleted] 24 February 2012 06:36:29AM 7 points [-]

Everything you'd want to know about assassination markets.

but how is this helping society be pretty swell for most people, and what is the one guy's job exactly?

Incentive to cooperate? A reduction in the necessity of war, which is by nature an inefficient use of resources? From the story:

The wise men of that city had devised the practice when it became apparent to them that the endless clashes of armies on battlefields led to no lasting conclusion, nor did they extirpate the roots of the conflicts. Rather, they merely wasted the blood and treasure of the people. It was clear to them that those rulers led their people into death and iniquity, while remaining untouched themselves, lounging in comfort and luxury amidst the most crushing defeat.

It was better that a few die before their time than the many. It was better that a little wealth go to the evil than much; better that conflicts be ended dishonorably once and for all, than fought honorably time and again; and better that peace be ill-bought than bought honestly at too high a price to be borne. So they thought.

Moving on.

(Can you not bet on the deaths of arbitrary people, only people it is bad to have around?

Nope, "badness" is determined by the market.

Is the one guy supposed to determine who it's bad to have around or something and only allow bets on those folks? How does he determine that, if so?)

The "merchant of death" diffuses the legal culpability associated with betting on the assassination market. The tension in the narrative comes from him feeling ever so slightly morally culpable for the assassinations, even though he only "causes" them indirectly. Again from the story:

Through judicious use of an intermediary (the merchant of death), the predictor could make his prediction, pay the fee, and collect the reward while remaining unknown to all save one.

Comment author: Alicorn 24 February 2012 06:50:21AM 2 points [-]

I think I get it. I have worldbuilding disagreements with this but am no longer bewildered. Thank you!

Comment author: pedanterrific 24 February 2012 07:14:41AM 1 point [-]

So, I have some questions: how could you actually make money from this? It seems like the idea is that people place bets on the date that they're planning to assassinate the target themselves. So... where's the rest of the money come from, previous failed attempts? I'm not sure that "A whole bunch of guys tried to assassinate the president and got horribly slaughtered for their trouble. That means killing him'd make me rich! Where's my knife?" is a realistic train of thought.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 February 2012 07:38:30AM 5 points [-]

how could you actually make money from this?

The gamblers collect their winnings; the merchant of death charges a fee, presumably to compensate for the hypothetical legal liability and moral hazard. See the last quote from the story in grandparent.

It seems like the idea is that people place bets on the date that they're planning to assassinate the target themselves. So... where's the rest of the money come from, previous failed attempts?

Or they want someone else to become more motivated to assassinate the target.

I'm not sure that "A whole bunch of guys tried to assassinate the president and got horribly slaughtered for their trouble. That means killing him'd make me rich! Where's my knife?" is a realistic train of thought.

It's not, because that's not how the information on how much a certain death is worth propagates. The assassination market needs to be at least semi-publicly observable -- in the story's case, the weight of the money in the named cylinder pulls it down, showing how much money is in the cylinder. If someone wanted a high-risk target, they'd have to offer more money to encourage the market to supply the service.

Comment author: pedanterrific 24 February 2012 08:05:16AM *  2 points [-]

The assassination market needs to be at least semi-publicly observable -- in the story's case, the weight of the money in the named cylinder pulls it down, showing how much money is in the cylinder.

Ahh, that was the bit I missed. Okay, that makes sense now.

Edit: Upon rereading, I think this could perhaps be a bit clearer.

To one side of him were suspended cylinders. And each hung at a different height, held by oiled cords leading away into the depths. And upon each cylinder was inscribed a name. The merchant looked at one marked 'Sammael'. A man he had never met, and never would.

Cylinders hung suspended, okay. Held by cords leading into the "depths" - what?

Into one of the holes by that particular cylinder, he dropped several heavy gold coins. Some time after their clinkings ceased to echo, the cylinder hoisted ever so slightly. Into the other hole he dropped a pouch containing: a parchment note listing a particular date, a fat coin in fee, and a stout lock.

Holes by that cylinder- presumably in the wall or floor? The money goes into the locked treasure room, not the cylinder. And it causes (somehow) the cylinder to rise, not fall.

Comment author: gwern 24 February 2012 04:42:27PM 3 points [-]

Holes by that cylinder- presumably in the wall or floor? The money goes into the locked treasure room, not the cylinder. And it causes (somehow) the cylinder to rise, not fall.

The idea is that the room in the dungeons has two compartments which the two holes lead to: one contains the locks and predictions, and only the 'winning' lock is used when the person is assassinated (my offline analogue to crypto signatures), but the other just holds the money/rewards, and is actually a big cup or something held up by the cord which goes up to the ceiling, around a pulley, and then down to the cylinder. Hence, the more weight (money) inside the cup, the higher the cylinder is hoisted.

I guess ropes and pulleys are no longer so common these days as to make the setup clear and not requiring further explanation?

(This is one of the vulnerabilities as described - what's to stop someone from dumping in some lead? As I said, real-world equivalents to crypto are hard. Probably this could be solved by bringing in another human weak point - eg. specifying that only the merchants are allowed to put money in.)

Comment author: kpreid 24 February 2012 05:49:48PM 4 points [-]

The described pulley setup will simply accelerate until it reaches one limit or the other depending on the balance of weights. In order to have the position vary with the load, you need a position-varying force, such as

  • A spring.
  • A rotating off-center mass, as in a balance scale. (This is nonlinear for large angles.)
  • An asymmetric pulley, i.e. a cam (in the shape of an Archimedean spiral).
  • A tall object (of constant cross-section) entering a pool of water.
Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit