I generally think of satisficing being a local property of a utility function. I may want to maximize my utility, but locally speaking I am indifferent among many, many things, so I satisfice in respect to those things.
I think that looking at it in this way might be more productive.
Aside from that,
Would not effectively aid M(u), a u-maximiser.
Would not effectively resist M(-u), a u-minimizer.
It is likely to do the former up to a point, and would certainly do the latter after a point. As Vaniver noted, you haven’t specified that point.
Quite agreed. A satisficer is an agent with a negative term in their utility function for disruption and effort. It’s not limiting it’s utility, it’s limited in how much stuff it can do without reducing utility.
I generally think of satisficing being a local property of a utility function. I may want to maximize my utility, but locally speaking I am indifferent among many, many things, so I satisfice in respect to those things.
I think that looking at it in this way might be more productive.
Aside from that,
It is likely to do the former up to a point, and would certainly do the latter after a point. As Vaniver noted, you haven’t specified that point.
Quite agreed. A satisficer is an agent with a negative term in their utility function for disruption and effort. It’s not limiting it’s utility, it’s limited in how much stuff it can do without reducing utility.
Dagon, despite agreeing, you seem to be saying the opposite to Luke_A_Somers (and your position is closer to mine).