I’m tempted to conclude that your current accumulated utility given LW is lower than given (counterfactual no-LW), but that in counterpart/compensation your future expected utility has risen considerably by unknown margins with a relatively high confidence.
Is this an incorrect interpretation of the subtext? Am I reading too much into it?
I’ve noticed that I don’t even need to be knowledge to gain utility—there is a strong correlation between the signaling of my ‘knowledgeableness’ and the post popularity—the most popular had the largest number of references (38), and so on. When writing the post, I just hide the fact that I researched so much because of my uncertainty :)
I’m tempted to conclude that your current accumulated utility given LW is lower than given (counterfactual no-LW), but that in counterpart/compensation your future expected utility has risen considerably by unknown margins with a relatively high confidence.
Is this an incorrect interpretation of the subtext? Am I reading too much into it?
That interpretation is correct.
I’ve noticed that I don’t even need to be knowledge to gain utility—there is a strong correlation between the signaling of my ‘knowledgeableness’ and the post popularity—the most popular had the largest number of references (38), and so on. When writing the post, I just hide the fact that I researched so much because of my uncertainty :)