There’s already a word for that: “optimand”. The latter is the better terminology because (i) science-y types familiar with the “-and” suffix will instantly understand it and (ii) it’s not in a name collision with another concept.
If “utility” is just terminology for “that which is optimized”, then
It is this simplicity that makes the utility-based framework such an excellent general purpose model of goal-directed agents
is vacuous: goal-directed agents attempt to optimize something by definition.
Right—but you can’t say “expected optimand maximiser”. There is a loooong history of using the term “utility” in this context in economics. Think you have better terminology? Go for it—but so far, I don’t see much of a case.
When you’ve read other people writing things like this (or “No. You just didn’t understand it. Perhaps re-read.” or “I am not someone in thrall to the prevalent reality distortion field”) online, how have you felt about it? I can’t believe that you have this little skill in thinking about how others might perceive your writing, so I’m led to conclude that you haven’t really tried it.
Imagine an LW reader whose opinion you actually care about enough to write for them. If there is no such reader, then there is no point in you writing here, and you should stop, so that might be the end of the exercise. However, let’s suppose you do imagine them. Let’s further suppose that they are not already convinced of something you’d like to tell them about—again, if all the people you want to convince are already convinced then your keystrokes are wasted. Now imagine them reading comments like this or the other one I quoted above. What impact do you imagine them having on this reader?
Think more generally about your target audience, and how you want to come across to them; try to put yourself in their shoes. Give it five minutes by the clock.
I’m not optimistic that you’ll take my advice on this one—in fact I expect I’m going to get another rude and dismissive response, though you might take the wrong turn of simply trying to justify your responses rather than addressing what I’m asking—but I wanted to try to persuade you, because if it works it could lead to a big increase in the usefulness of your contributions.
Maybe I should just ignore ridiculous replies to my posts from repeat harassers - like the one I responded to above—rather than responding by saying farewell—and making it clear that I am not interested in wasting further words on the topic.
What I wrote was good too, though. Short, to the point—and pretty final.
I don’t see the problems you see. The passages you cite are from posts I am proud of. Thanks for the unsolicited writing pep talk, though.
I can’t believe that you have this little skill in thinking about how others might perceive your writing, so I’m led to conclude that you haven’t really tried it.
You are speculating rather wildly there. That is an inaccurate interpretation. I don’t waste my words on worthless things, is all. Life is too short for that.
There’s already a word for that: “optimand”. The latter is the better terminology because (i) science-y types familiar with the “-and” suffix will instantly understand it and (ii) it’s not in a name collision with another concept.
If “utility” is just terminology for “that which is optimized”, then
is vacuous: goal-directed agents attempt to optimize something by definition.
Right—but you can’t say “expected optimand maximiser”. There is a loooong history of using the term “utility” in this context in economics. Think you have better terminology? Go for it—but so far, I don’t see much of a case.
That would be the “other concept” (link edited to point to specific subsection of linked article) referred to in the grandparent.
It wasn’t very clear what you meant by that. The other use of “utility”? Presumably you didn’t mean this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utility
...but what did you mean?
Actually I don’t much care. You are just bitching about standard terminology. That is not my problem.
Not “vacuous”—true. We have people saying that utility-based frameworks are “harmful”. That needs correcting, is all.
I suspect that by “utility-based frameworks” they mean something more specific than you do.
Maybe—but if suspicions are all you have, then someone is not being clear—and I don’t think it is me.
I find it hilarious that you think you’re being perfectly clear and yet cannot be bothered to employ standard terminology.
I don’t know what you are insinuating—but I have lost interest in your ramblings on this thread.
When you’ve read other people writing things like this (or “No. You just didn’t understand it. Perhaps re-read.” or “I am not someone in thrall to the prevalent reality distortion field”) online, how have you felt about it? I can’t believe that you have this little skill in thinking about how others might perceive your writing, so I’m led to conclude that you haven’t really tried it.
Imagine an LW reader whose opinion you actually care about enough to write for them. If there is no such reader, then there is no point in you writing here, and you should stop, so that might be the end of the exercise. However, let’s suppose you do imagine them. Let’s further suppose that they are not already convinced of something you’d like to tell them about—again, if all the people you want to convince are already convinced then your keystrokes are wasted. Now imagine them reading comments like this or the other one I quoted above. What impact do you imagine them having on this reader?
Think more generally about your target audience, and how you want to come across to them; try to put yourself in their shoes. Give it five minutes by the clock.
I’m not optimistic that you’ll take my advice on this one—in fact I expect I’m going to get another rude and dismissive response, though you might take the wrong turn of simply trying to justify your responses rather than addressing what I’m asking—but I wanted to try to persuade you, because if it works it could lead to a big increase in the usefulness of your contributions.
Maybe I should just ignore ridiculous replies to my posts from repeat harassers - like the one I responded to above—rather than responding by saying farewell—and making it clear that I am not interested in wasting further words on the topic.
What I wrote was good too, though. Short, to the point—and pretty final.
I don’t see the problems you see. The passages you cite are from posts I am proud of. Thanks for the unsolicited writing pep talk, though.
You are speculating rather wildly there. That is an inaccurate interpretation. I don’t waste my words on worthless things, is all. Life is too short for that.