You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

crazy88 comments on CEV-inspired models - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 07 December 2011 06:35PM

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

Comments (41)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: crazy88 07 December 2011 08:32:24PM 0 points [-]

Sorry if this is answered elsewhere but I thought interpersonal comparisons of utility were generally considered to be impossible.

Is the crucial difference about CEV the fact that it doesn't attempt to maximise the utility of humanity but rather to extract the volition of humanity by treating each person's input equally without attempting to claim that utility is being compared between people to do so? Or does CEV involve interpersonal comparison of utility and, if so, why is this not considered problematic?

Comment author: AlexSchell 07 December 2011 08:50:32PM *  2 points [-]

I thought interpersonal comparisons of utility were generally considered to be impossible.

This is true about aggregating ordinal utilities, but doesn't hold for cardinal utilities (see Arrow's theorem). If you are talking about comparing utilities (i.e. choosing a normalization method), I'm not aware of a general consensus that this is impossible.

Comment author: Larks 07 December 2011 10:31:18PM 6 points [-]

Economists generally regard interpersonal utility comparisons as impossible; hence the focus on Pareto, and then Kalder-Hicks, optimality. See for example this, though any decent economics textbook will cover it.

The problem, of course, is that utility functions are only defined up to an affine transformation.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 08 December 2011 09:36:53AM 0 points [-]

The problem, of course, is that utility functions are only defined up to an affine transformation.

Which is why I normalise them first before adding them up.

Comment author: timtyler 08 December 2011 12:48:39PM 0 points [-]

Sorry if this is answered elsewhere but I thought interpersonal comparisons of utility were generally considered to be impossible.

Not impossible, just challenging.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 08 December 2011 09:36:21AM 0 points [-]

Sorry if this is answered elsewhere but I thought interpersonal comparisons of utility were generally considered to be impossible.

It's hard. You can do it, in many ways, but most of the properties you'd want to have cannot be had. The max-min method of normalisation I mentioned has the most of the intuitive properties (despite not being very intuitive itself).

Comment author: crazy88 09 December 2011 07:36:22AM 0 points [-]

If you have the time, I'd be interested to know what these desirable properties are (or would be happy to read a paper on the topic if you have one to suggest).

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 09 December 2011 09:02:44AM 0 points [-]

We're working on those at the moment, so they're still in flux; but we'll put them out there once we've firmed them up.

Comment author: crazy88 09 December 2011 10:09:38PM 0 points [-]

Cool, I'll keep my eye out.