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.

paulfchristiano comments on Utility, probability and false beliefs - Less Wrong Discussion

1 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 09 November 2015 09:43PM

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

Comments (2)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: paulfchristiano 10 November 2015 01:40:42AM *  2 points [-]

If we are trying to change P, it seems like we can just talk about changes to P rather than introducing u.

Here is the first thing I would try:

In the 1:0 case you can just condition on x, replacing each P(E) with P(E|x). In the general case you instead condition on the fact that a biased coin came up “heads,” where the bias depends on x. (Of course you can also just make the corresponding update directly.) These are operations that your AI already needs to perform every time it makes an observation, so this doesn’t really complicate the design at all.

This is almost the same as your (2), except you omit the normalizing factor (P(x) + lambda P(not x)). The unnormalized version seems theoretically wacky; it is also problematic, since (as you point out) it introduces significant incentives to distort the value of x.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 10 November 2015 02:18:42PM *  0 points [-]

EDIT: Duh. Ignore the previous message. My brain is very slow at the moment.