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.

torekp comments on Expected utility, unlosing agents, and Pascal's mugging - Less Wrong Discussion

19 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 28 July 2014 06:05PM

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

Comments (54)

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

Comment author: torekp 01 August 2014 02:21:15AM 0 points [-]

Yes, I like your "unlosing agents" approach a lot. It is more modest than some interpretations of utility, and largely for that reason, a big step in the right direction, in my view.

I disagree that Allais choosers will get Dutch Booked if they remain consistent, unless perhaps you mean "consistent" to build in some very strong set of other axioms of decision theory. They simply make more distinctions among gambles and sequences of gambles than traditional theory allows for. An Allais chooser can reasonably object, for example, that a sequence of choices and randomized events is different from a single choice followed by a single randomized event, even if decision theory treats them as "equivalent".

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 01 August 2014 02:33:50PM 0 points [-]

If you're an active investor, the markets or the universe can punish you for deviating from independence unless you're paying very close attention.

But this is again my general point - the mode decision you have to make (including decisions not to do something) the closer an unlosing agent resembles an expected utility maximiser.