= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
skeptical_lurker comments on Open thread, Nov. 30 - Dec. 06, 2015 - 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 (104)
I realise that it's not a function of what I know, what I meant is that given that I have heard a lot about CEV, it seems that a lot of people support it.
Still, I think I am using 'Schelling point' wrongly here - what I mean is that maybe CEV is something people could agree on with communication, like a point of compromise.
Do you think that it is impossible for an FAI to implement CEV?
A Schelling point, as I understand it, is a choice that has value only because of the network effect. It is not "the best" by some criterion, it's not a compromise, in some sense it's an irrational choice from equal candidates -- it's just that people's minds are drawn to it.
In particular, a Schelling point is not something you agree on -- in fact, it's something you do NOT agree on (beforehand) :-)
I don't know what CEV is. I suspect it's an impossible construct. It came into being as a solution to a problem EY ran his face into, but I don't consider it satisfactory.