From: Rolf Nelson (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Apr 12 2008 - 11:38:19 MDT
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Tim Freeman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> From: "Rolf Nelson" <email@example.com>
> >In Causal Decision Theory, this is true. However, it's possible to
> >adopt a different decision theory that is specifically designed to be
> >less exploitable, without having to give up the things that you care
> What things are we talking about giving up here?
Never mind, I thought you were advocating that we not care about
people outside the fixed set, when what you're recommending is that we
should still care, but in some way that's expressed outside the
utility function. This is still a bad idea in my opinion, but there's
already a lot of research and debate on "why we want utility functions
the first place" and I have no personal new insights beyond those that
have already been made (at least none that can be described in words
rather than vague intuitions inside my head about complexity spaces)
so I won't elaborate further.
> Would you care to
> describe the different decision theory you have in mind?
No, I would rather you figure out on your own what sorts of decision
theories would partially solve these problems. I advocate this either
because you'll gain more insight if you figure it out on your own, or
because I'm too lazy to explain it myself today (you have no way of
knowing which is the truth).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT