Downvoted for posting an old naked link. If you post a link, please at least summarize its point, your reasons for posting it here, and your opinion about the content.
Especially if you're linking to Overcoming Bias, our sister site and website that spawned Less Wrong.
Edit: I don't say this to insult you, I assumed you were new to the site. But apparently you have almost 5000 karma.
It was an exceptionally interesting OB post I hadn't read. The first paragraph works well as a summary and I give the readers enough credit to be able to figure out if they want to read something or not by opening a new tab and glancing at it.
The article also ends with question suitable for discussion here and I would have wanted to have seen if rationalists three years down the line can improve upon Bostrom's model.
The first paragraph works well as a summary and I give the readers enough credit to be able to figure out if they want to read something or not by opening a new tab and glancing at it.
They already did that once by opening this LW discussion thread. You're making them do something that wouldn't have been necessary if you'd just included the summary.
Bostrom's old model has some flaws. It's non Pareto and doesn't ignore irrelevant information (such as the different possible colours of paper the parliament could use). Finding sensible ways of aggregating preferences is a tricky problem, with fewer useful methods available than you'd think. With Will Crouch and others, we're trying to come up with a sensible way of doing this.