Another page that doesn't link to any Less Wrong blog posts, or any other external references. This automatically qualifies it as either a stub, or as original research, both of which are bad, according to this wiki's (unwritten?) standards. --PeerInfinity 02:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Added the blogposts link, this is another concept in the something-to-protect/rationalists-should-win &c. cluster of ideas, but I think it deserves its own page. --Zack M. Davis 02:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that it should be "the utility function is up for grabs". Posterior probabilities follow inextricably from prior probabilities; you have no choice in the matter, but you can have your own utility function. --DanielLC 02:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The summary as given is wrong, the point is that utility function is like prior, it's not something you can change, it's part of the problem statement. --Vladimir Nesov 15:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
From the old discussion page:
Talk:The utility function is not up for grabs
Another page that doesn't link to any Less Wrong blog posts, or any other external references. This automatically qualifies it as either a stub, or as original research, both of which are bad, according to this wiki's (unwritten?) standards. --PeerInfinity 02:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Added the blogposts link, this is another concept in the something-to-protect/rationalists-should-win &c. cluster of ideas, but I think it deserves its own page. --Zack M. Davis 02:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that it should be "the utility function is up for grabs". Posterior probabilities follow inextricably from prior probabilities; you have no choice in the matter, but you can have your own utility function. --DanielLC 02:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The summary as given is wrong, the point is that utility function is like prior, it's not something you can change, it's part of the problem statement. --Vladimir Nesov 15:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)