= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam_Bur comments on Open thread for December 9 - 16, 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 (371)
Game theory is about strategies, not about values. It tells you which strategy should you use, if your goal is to maximize X. It does not tell you what X is. (Although some X's, such as survival, are instrumental goals for many different terminal goals, so they will be supported by many strategies.)
There is a risk of maximizing some X that looks like a good approximation of human values, but its actual maximization is unFriendly.
Connotational objection: so is any school of anything; at least unless the problem of Friendliness is solved.
OK, I think I was misunderstood and also tired and phrased things poorly. Game theory itself is not a bad thing; it is somewhat like a knife, or a nuke. It has no intrinsic morality, but the things it seems to tend to be used for, for several reasons, wind up being things that eject negative externalities like crazy.
Yes, but this seems to be most egregious when you advocate letting millions of people starve because the precious Market might be upset.
Who precisely are you thinking of, who advocated allowing mass starvation for this reason?
Millions of people did starve for reasons completely opposed to free markets.
Besides the fact that maximizing a non-Friendly function leads to horrible results (whether the system being maximized is the Market, the Party, the Church, or... whatever), what exactly are you trying to say? Do you think that markets create more horrible results than those other options? Do you have any specific evidence for that? In that case it would be probably better to discuss the specific thing, before moving to a wide generalization.
Yes.
I suspect you're looking at it with a rather biased view.
Sigh. You made a cobman -- one constructed of mud and straw. Congratulations.