I missed that one and would have downvoted it too, because you seem confused.
You describe an agent as “without a goal”, but then you insist that it cares about “not losing a lot”.
Anyway, Rob Dost tried to explain it to you, it didn’t help. You seem to equivocate between an agent “without a goal” and an agent that “doesn’t know whether it has a goal, and tries to figure it out”.
You seem to argue that every agent has an inherent goal to figure out its goal. Why? Because you say so.
People tried to explain it to you, you don’t get it, and when you get downvoted, you make a meta post, and demand scientific consensus or a review of your argument by moderators.
Please consider the possibility that you might simply be wrong.
I missed that one and would have downvoted it too, because you seem confused.
You describe an agent as “without a goal”, but then you insist that it cares about “not losing a lot”.
Anyway, Rob Dost tried to explain it to you, it didn’t help. You seem to equivocate between an agent “without a goal” and an agent that “doesn’t know whether it has a goal, and tries to figure it out”.
You seem to argue that every agent has an inherent goal to figure out its goal. Why? Because you say so.
People tried to explain it to you, you don’t get it, and when you get downvoted, you make a meta post, and demand scientific consensus or a review of your argument by moderators.
Please consider the possibility that you might simply be wrong.
There is this possibility, of course. Anyway I don’t have any strong arguments to change my opinion yet.
I noticed that many people don’t understand significance of Pascal’s mugging, which might be the case with you too, feel free to join in here.