= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Larks comments on Open thread, March 17-31, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (173)
In every kind of utilitarianism, including revealed preference, utilities are assigned to outcomes. The varieties I've described, and revealed preference, just disagree about how to assign values to outcomes.
These are different mechanisms to theoretically quantitate utility, but do they actually have implementations? (Revealed preference is unique in that it's an implementation, although a post-hoc one, and defined by the fact that the utility is qualitative rather than quantitative - that is, utility relationships are strictly relative)
None of these actually assign utility to outcomes, they just tell you what an implementation should look like.
I'm not sure what you mean by an implementation if you think revealed preference is an implementation. We don't have revealed preference maximising robots.