Well, I interpreted Robin to mean “we’re going to use this algorithm to aggregate preferences”. You would have to drop the language of “errors” though.
Okay. In a form, this view can even be equivalent, if you stick to the same data, a kind of nonparametric view that only recognizes observations. You see this discussion as about summarization of people’s behavior (e.g. to implement a policy to which most people would agree), while I see it as about inference of people’s hidden wishes behind visible behavior or stated wishes, and maybe as summarization of people’s hidden wishes (e.g. to implement a policy that most people would appreciate as it unfolds, but which they won’t necessarily agree on at the time).
Note that e.g. signaling can seriously distort the picture of wants seen in behavior.
while I see it as about inference of people’s hidden wishes behind visible behavior or stated wishes, and maybe as summarization of people’s hidden wishes (e.g. to implement a policy that most people would appreciate as it unfolds, but which they won’t necessarily agree on at the time).
I would agree that this is sometimes sensible. However, just because a policy pleases people as it unfolds, we should not infer that that policy constituted the peoples’ unique hidden preference.
Events and situations can influence preferences—change what we think of as our values.
Furthermore, it isn’t clear where the line between exercising your free will to suppress certain desires and being deluded about your true preferences is.
Basically, this thing is a big mess, philosophically and computationally.
Well, I interpreted Robin to mean “we’re going to use this algorithm to aggregate preferences”. You would have to drop the language of “errors” though.
Okay. In a form, this view can even be equivalent, if you stick to the same data, a kind of nonparametric view that only recognizes observations. You see this discussion as about summarization of people’s behavior (e.g. to implement a policy to which most people would agree), while I see it as about inference of people’s hidden wishes behind visible behavior or stated wishes, and maybe as summarization of people’s hidden wishes (e.g. to implement a policy that most people would appreciate as it unfolds, but which they won’t necessarily agree on at the time).
Note that e.g. signaling can seriously distort the picture of wants seen in behavior.
I would agree that this is sometimes sensible. However, just because a policy pleases people as it unfolds, we should not infer that that policy constituted the peoples’ unique hidden preference.
Events and situations can influence preferences—change what we think of as our values.
Furthermore, it isn’t clear where the line between exercising your free will to suppress certain desires and being deluded about your true preferences is.
Basically, this thing is a big mess, philosophically and computationally.
The best summation of the topic I’ve yet come across.
Yes, you’re very intelligent. Please expand.