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.

Manfred comments on An Attempt at Preference Uncertainty Using VNM - Less Wrong Discussion

8 [deleted] 16 July 2013 05:20AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (33)
Tags: indirect_normativity moral_uncertainty morality vnm

Comments (33)

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

Comment author: Manfred 17 July 2013 05:21:48AM 0 points [-]

What you "did" there is full of type errors and treating the scales and offsets as significant and whatnot. That is not allowed, and you seemed to be claiming that it is not allowed.

Hm. You definitely did communicate that, but I guess maybe I'm pointing out a math mistake - it seems to me that you called the problem of arbitrary offsets solved too early. Though in your example it wasn't a problem because you only had two outcomes and one outcome was always the zero point.

As I realized later because of Alex, the upshot is that to really deal with the problem of offsets you have to (at least de facto) normalize the relative utilities, not the utilities themselves. (On pain of stupidity)

Comment author: [deleted] 17 July 2013 05:30:13AM *  0 points [-]

Though in your example it wasn't a problem because you only had two outcomes and one outcome was always the zero point.

I think my procedure does not run into trouble even with three options and other offsets. I don't feel like trying it just now, but if you want to demonstrate how it goes wrong, please do.

the upshot is that to really deal with the problem of offsets you have to (at least de facto) normalize the relative utilities, not the utilities themselves. (On pain of stupidity)

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit