= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I will offer you a bet at any odds you want that humanity will still be around in 10 years.
In response to
Linkposts now live!
In feedly, I need to click once to get to the post and a second time to get to the link. Can you include a link within the body of the RSS so I can click to it directly?
In response to
No negative press agreement
Name and shame media entities that fail to comply with no negative press, or fail to consider a policy.
Ironically, this suggestion is precisely the kind of "negative press" you ostensibly want to eradicate.
You haven't nearly done enough to explain why so called negative press is bad, nor what exactly it is. Many good things have resulted from a negative exposé published by the media.
In response to
The call of the void
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1016636214258 but I don't see the raw data on a quick look.
From the study (free from the link above)
Impulsive Experiences Scale. The Impulsive Experiences Scale is a 10- item questionnaire designed for this study that asks subjects to rate the urges they have had to do inappropriate and harmful behaviors on a six item likert scale. Subjects were asked to rate the presence and strength of five different impulses/urges; the urge to shout something inappropriate while surrounded by other people, the urge to jump off of a high place, the urge to steal or take something, the urge to jump in front of a train, subway, or car, and the urge to strike or slap someone.
Again, thanks for this.
"The problem with your solution is that it's not complete in the formal sense: you can only say some things are better than other things if they strictly dominate them, but if neither strictly dominates the other you can't say anything."
As I said earlier, my solution is an argument that in every case there will be an action that strictly dominates all the others. (Or, weaker: that within the set of all hypotheses of probability less than some finite N, one action will strictly dominate all the others, and that this action will be the same action that is optimal in the most probable hypothesis.) I don't know if my argument is sound yet, but if it is, it avoids your objection, no?
I'd love to understand what you said about re-arranging terms, but I don't. Can you explain in more detail how you get from the first set of hypotheses/choices (which I understand) to the second?
I'd love to understand what you said about re-arranging terms, but I don't. Can you explain in more detail how you get from the first set of hypotheses/choices (which I understand) to the second?
I just moved the right hand side down by two spaces. The sum still stays the same, but the relative inequality flips.
As I said earlier, my solution is an argument that in every case there will be an action that strictly dominates all the others.
Why would you think that? I don't really see where you argued for that, could you point me at the part of your comments that said that?
This was helpful, thanks!
As I understand it, you are proposing modifying the example so that on some H1 through HN, choosing A gives you less utility than choosing B, but then thereafter choosing B is better, because there is some cost you pay which is the same in each world.
It seems like the math tells us that any price would be worth it, that we should give up an unbounded amount of utility to choose A over B. I agree that this seems like the wrong answer. So I don't think whatever I'm proposing solves this problem.
But that's a different problem than the one I'm considering. (In the problem I'm considering, choosing A is better in every possible world.) Can you think of a way they might be parallel--any way that the "I give up" which I just said above applies to the problem I'm considering too?
The problem there, and the problem with Pascal's Mugging in general, is that outcomes with a tiny amount of probability dominate the decisions. A could be massively worse than B 99.99999% of the time, and still naive utility maximization says to pick B.
One way to fix it is to bound utility. But that has its own problems.
The problem with your solution is that it's not complete in the formal sense: you can only say some things are better than other things if they strictly dominate them, but if neither strictly dominates the other you can't say anything.
I would also claim that your solution doesn't satisfy framing invariants that all decision theories should arguably follow. For example, what about changing the order of the terms? Let us reframe utility as after probabilities, so we can move stuff around without changing numbers. E.g. if I say utility 5, p:.01, that really means you're getting utility 500 in that scenario, so it adds 5 total in expectation. Now, consider the following utilities:
1<2 p:.5
2<3 p:.5^2
3<4 p:.5^3
n<n+1 p:.5^n
...
etc. So if you're faced with choosing between something that gives you the left side or the right side, choose the right side.
But clearly re-arranging terms doesn't change the expected utility, since that's just the sum of all terms. So the above is equivalent to:
1>0 p:.5
2>0 p:.5^2
3>2 p:.5^3
4>3 p:.5^4
n>n-1 p:.5^n
So your solution is inconsistent if it satisfies the invariant of "moving around expected utility between outcomes doesn't change the best choice".
Great! How did you get it to the front page of Reddit?
By the way, looking at https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/duplicates/4vhqoc/should_we_wipe_mosquitoes_off_the_face_of_the/ there are another couple submissions in other subs right after mine which were presumably inspired by my post (the article is from February), one in TIL which also hit the frontpage.
Great! How did you get it to the front page of Reddit?
I just submitted it and was lucky. It's the kind of thing that sub likes. I've had around three posts hit the front page out of probably thousands since I started, there's definitely a large luck factor that goes in.
We're consequentialists here, so I get all the credit for it even if it wasn't much effort, right?
In response to
Now is the time to eliminate mosquitoes
I got https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/4vhqoc/should_we_wipe_mosquitoes_off_the_face_of_the/ to the front page of Reddit, which probably got somewhere on the order of magnitude of 50,000 people to read it or at least think about the idea, which can only help in terms of moving it into the Overton Window.
I know at one point it was number 6 for logged out users.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
If you think this is related, then I failed to communicate my idea.
You can think of risk contracts as of an internal currency of decision making, that allows to coordinate risk management in a situation when there are multiple agents acting independently (or new agents are created).
Definitely different from betting on extinction events, or betting on predictions about those events.
On a re-read, I understand what you mean. But the issue is that it's hard to measure what level of risk certain activities have (citation needed). I kind of assumed you were saying something along the lines of "let the market decide" but apparently not. But then how do you plan on measuring risk?
If we had a iron-clad process for determining how risky things are, this would be a lot simpler.