These are all empirical questions, but they seem very important for Devon’s ultimate decision, as T1 and T2 don’t “intrinsicallycare”about buying fish curry or buying tofu curry; they care about some of the outcomes which those actions may or may not cause.[4]
The wording seems weird here.
These are all empirical question, and they seem very important for Devon’s ultimate decision, but T1 and T2 don’t “intrinsicallycare”about buying fish curry or buying tofu curry; they care about the outcomes which those actions may or may not cause.[4]?
Confusion:
The expected choice-worthiness of buying a fish curry would therefore be: 0.8 * −100 * 0.25 + 0.8 * 0 * 0.75 + 0.95 * 10 * 0.25 + 0.95 * 10 * 0.75 = −10.5
Meanwhile, the expected choice-worthiness of buying a tofu curry would be: 0.1 * −100 * 0.25 + 0.1 * 0 * 0.75 + 0.5 * 10 * 0.25 + 0.5 * 10 * 0.75 = 2.5
The equations were confusing.
-The 0.25 and 0.75 in the calculation come from the credence in the theories, per the model in Guesstimate.
-The parts that are times 0 were initially confusing.
-Some separation with () or {} might make the equations easier to read.
These are all empirical questions, but they seem very important for Devon’s ultimate decision, as T1 and T2 don’t “intrinsicallycare”about buying fish curry or buying tofu curry; they care about some of the outcomes which those actions may or may not cause.[4]
I mean this:
These are all empirical rather than moral questions, but they still seem very important for Devon’s ultimate decision. This is because T1 and T2 don’t “intrinsicallycare”about whether someone buys fish curry or buys tofu curry; these theories assign no terminal value to which curry is bought. Instead, these theories “care” about some of the outcomes which those actions may or may not cause.[4]
Does that seem clearer to you? If so, I may edit the post to say that.
ETA: The ultimate point this is driving at is that, as covered in the next sentence, accounting for moral uncertainty alone doesn’t seem sufficient. I had assumed that would be clear from the intro and from the following sentence, but let me know if you think it’d be worth me adding something like “Thus, it seems Devon should account for his empirical uncertainty as well as his moral uncertainty” to the paragraph the above quotes are from.
I did worry that might be the case. I was hoping they’d be clear enough given that they can be read alongside the Guesstimate model, but I wasn’t sure about that. And your suggestion of at least adding brackets definitely seems logical, so I’ve now done that. (I’ve also now put the equations on new, indented lines.)
Also since x*y*z + x*y*(1-z) = xy, the above equations can be rewritten as:
I considered that approach too. It’s obviously valid, and does de-clutter things. But I sort-of feel like it’s still best to stick to just a plain presentation of the equations one would initially get from the MEC-E formula, rather than also adding the step of rearranging/rewriting.
Errata:
The wording seems weird here.
These are all empirical question, and they seem very important for Devon’s ultimate decision, but T1 and T2 don’t “intrinsically care” about buying fish curry or buying tofu curry; they care about the outcomes which those actions may or may not cause.[4]?
Confusion:
The equations were confusing.
-The 0.25 and 0.75 in the calculation come from the credence in the theories, per the model in Guesstimate.
-The parts that are times 0 were initially confusing.
-Some separation with () or {} might make the equations easier to read.
(0.8 * −100 * 0.25) + (0.8 * 0 * 0.75) + (0.95 * 10 * 0.25) + (0.95 * 10 * 0.75) = −10.5
(0.1 * −100 * 0.25) + (0.1 * 0 * 0.75) + (0.5 * 10 * 0.25) + (0.5 * 10 * 0.75) = 2.5
Also since x*y*z + x*y*(1-z) = xy, the above equations can be rewritten as:
(0.8 * −100 * 0.25) + (0.8 * 0 * 0.75) + (0.95 * 10) = −10.5
(0.1 * −100 * 0.25) + (0.1 * 0 * 0.75) + (0.5 * 10) = 2.5
The intuitive explanation is because it involves a fact which is (considered to be) certain regardless of which theory is correct.
Thanks for this feedback!
By this:
I mean this:
Does that seem clearer to you? If so, I may edit the post to say that.
ETA: The ultimate point this is driving at is that, as covered in the next sentence, accounting for moral uncertainty alone doesn’t seem sufficient. I had assumed that would be clear from the intro and from the following sentence, but let me know if you think it’d be worth me adding something like “Thus, it seems Devon should account for his empirical uncertainty as well as his moral uncertainty” to the paragraph the above quotes are from.
It does, thanks!
I think the change already covers that, by establishing the relationship between empirical and moral questions.
A good property to have.
Great—now edited (also on the EA Forum). Really appreciate the feedback here and on the last post!
(And for anyone who for some reason cares, here’s a frozen version of how this was when originally posted.)
I did worry that might be the case. I was hoping they’d be clear enough given that they can be read alongside the Guesstimate model, but I wasn’t sure about that. And your suggestion of at least adding brackets definitely seems logical, so I’ve now done that. (I’ve also now put the equations on new, indented lines.)
I considered that approach too. It’s obviously valid, and does de-clutter things. But I sort-of feel like it’s still best to stick to just a plain presentation of the equations one would initially get from the MEC-E formula, rather than also adding the step of rearranging/rewriting.