All of koreindian's Comments + Replies

Consider bringing bathing suits (and towels) because we have a pool.

Could someone provide some color on what "insanity" refers to here? Are we talking about O(people becoming unproductive crackpots), or O(people developing psychosis)?

4Nathan Helm-Burger2y
More the second one. Plus runaway anxiety spirals and depression.

Yes, many humans exhibit the former betting behavior but not the latter. Rabin argues that an Eu maximizer doing the former will do the latter. Hence, we need to think of humans as something than Eu maximizers.

2abramdemski3y
OK. But humans who work the stock market would write code to vacuum up 1000-to-1010 investments as fast as possible, to take advantage of them before others, so long as they were small enough compared to the bankroll to be approved of by fractional Kelley betting. Unless the point is that they're so small that it's not worth the time spend writing the code. But then the explanation seems to be perfectly reasonable attention allocation. We could model the attention allocation directly, or, we could model them as utility maximizers up to epsilon -- like, they don't reliably pick up expected utility when it's under $20 or so. I'm not contesting the overall conclusion that humans aren't EV maximizers, but this doesn't seem like a particularly good argument.

Re: Reinventing the wheel

I don’t know of any slam dunk search term, but I suspect that the discussion you want to have surrounding partial preferences will contain mainly similarities to the work done on ceteris paribus laws. Particularly, if we aggregate the partial preferences of all moral agents, we will produce something like a moral ceteris paribus law, where we are holding the set Z of background variables “unchanged” (i.e. within a “reasonable” range of values). You might find the discussion around the justification of CP laws useful.

Additionally, I

... (read more)

That’s right, only (Defect, Defect) is Pareto dominated in PD and Chicken games