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.

Dagon comments on Open thread, Feb. 9 - Feb. 15, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: MrMind 09 February 2015 09:12AM

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

Comments (321)

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

Comment author: ciphergoth 10 February 2015 01:32:20AM *  5 points [-]

I found this exercise surprising and useful. Supposing we accept the standard model that our utility is logarithmic in money. Let's suppose we're paid $100,000 a year, and somewhat arbitrarily use that as the baseline for our utility calculations. We go out for a meal with 10 people where each spends $20 on food. At the end of the meal, we can either all put in $20 or we can randomize it and have one person pay $200. All other things being equal, how much should we be prepared to pay to avoid randomization?

Take a guess at the rough order of magnitude. Then look at this short Python program until you're happy that it's calculating the amount that you were trying to estimate, and then run it to see how accurate your estimate was.

from math import exp, log
w = 100000
b = 20
k = 10
print w - b - exp(log(w-k*b)/k + log(w)*(1-1.0/k))

Incidentally I discovered this while working out the (trivial) formula for an approximation to this following conversations with Paul Christiano and Benja Fallenstein.

EDITED TO ADD: If you liked this, check out Expectorant by Bethany Soule of Beeminder fame.

Comment author: Dagon 10 February 2015 03:40:38PM 6 points [-]

Improper measurements. You can't compare a time-based number (annual income) to a one-time decision (lump sum of $0, $20 or $200). W should be something like "expected future lifetime spending" in order for this to be a reasonable risk-preference calculation. Further comments assume these are quite poor folks who'll only ever consume $100k in the rest of their lives.

I guessed high by about 5x. The choice is even more trivial than I thought. I will continue happily playing credit card roulette :)

Comment author: ciphergoth 10 February 2015 04:54:34PM 1 point [-]

I agree that measuring by annual income isn't really legit, but I never know what figure to use here, and it seemed at least like a reasonable lower bound.

Comment author: DanielLC 10 February 2015 08:03:57PM 0 points [-]

Just say that you have that much money. Or specify that you do this once a year and you don't save money between years.