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.

nyan_sandwich comments on Utility Quilting - Less Wrong Discussion

7 [deleted] 07 April 2013 11:48PM

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

Comments (18)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 10 April 2013 05:49:20AM 1 point [-]

So if humans and other animals don't have a utility function, who does?

No one yet. We're working on it.

So the real question is, do humans deviate from the model to such an extent that the model should not be used?

Yes. You will find it much more fruitful to predict most humans as causal systems (including youself), and if you wanted to model human behavior with a utility function, you'd either have a lot of error, or a lot of trouble adding enough epicycles.

As I said though, VNM isn't useful descriptively; if you use it like that, it's tautological, and doesn't really tell you anything. Where it shines is in design of agenty systems; "If we had these preferences, what would that imply about where we would steer the future" (which worlds are ranked high) "if we want to steer the future over there, what decision architecture do we need?".