You wouldn’t believe how much open office spellchecker can miss. Sorry for that, I’ll run online spell check from now on.
Though I appreciate your theoretical points from a decision theory perspective, I decided on maintaining a human-centered line of argument in the second post. Instead of idealizing the agent and getting her to do awesome geeky math stuff (which would be nice) I used positive psychology to help think what a human should do given current human fallibility on these things. I’ll gladly help making a sequel, if you feel like writing one yourself (or yourfutureself)
Yeah, focusing on actual humans makes sense, especially since the idealized behaviour seems like it might be pretty crazy (according to standard notions of madness). Thanks for the offer of help, I’ll let you know if I actually get around to writing a post!
You wouldn’t believe how much open office spellchecker can miss. Sorry for that, I’ll run online spell check from now on.
Though I appreciate your theoretical points from a decision theory perspective, I decided on maintaining a human-centered line of argument in the second post. Instead of idealizing the agent and getting her to do awesome geeky math stuff (which would be nice) I used positive psychology to help think what a human should do given current human fallibility on these things. I’ll gladly help making a sequel, if you feel like writing one yourself (or yourfutureself)
Yeah, focusing on actual humans makes sense, especially since the idealized behaviour seems like it might be pretty crazy (according to standard notions of madness). Thanks for the offer of help, I’ll let you know if I actually get around to writing a post!