Can you really assume the agent to have a utility function that is both linear in paperclips (which implies risk neutrality) and bounded + monotonic?
PuyaSharif
Karma: 69
When I was eight or nine i got one of those electricity/magnetism experiment kits. Boy, did I love that kit! I did that motor, electric bell and electromagnet experiment over and over again for maybe a year and then moved on to building my own electronic stuff from components I found tearing old TV’s and radios apart. I soon had a little club at home teaching my friends!
Some years ago when my cousin just had turned nine I got him a kit and hoped to see him become as interested in electronics as I was in his age. But he hardly opened the box, and when I came to visit a year later that kit was long gone and forgotten. It simply could not stand the competition against the video games and toy guns.
I don’t want to demotivate you with this story. Just want to say that stimulating a kid towards some interest is much more than buying a set of object for them. The key is the time you spend and how you spend it. Make it a step by step project. Ask her; maybe there are things among your alternatives that are more interesting to her than other. Followup and communicate. Visit museums etc..
It depends on how you define ‘use’. People are trying to make sense of reality all the time. Different scenarios needs different tools and different ways of thinking. Basic high school science helps you understand parts of the news flow, some aspects of the mechanisms of your household appliances, transportation related concepts like time, velocity, acceleration, your body and so on.
shend, shimux. I am not questioning the overall thesis of the post. Just reacting to:
“I think the problem here is that people can’t understand what is really important. Calculus, mechanical physics, chemistry, microiology, etc. are interesting to learn, perhaps. But, they are relatively advanced topics. People don’t use them in daily life unless they are professionals. Why not learn things that we think about every day instead of those that will frankly be useless to most? ”
Calculus, mechanical physics, chemistry, microbiology etc are areas describing objective reality. They explain how the world we live in works on a fundamental level, i.e the very fabric of reality. Not only do they give answers to basic questions of human life, they also activate the students toward systematic analytical thinking and questioning.
Do you really mean that people would be better off never being exposed to (“interesting but useless”) natural science? Would you prefer a society where most people doesn’t have a clue about how things around them came to be or how they work? How would a potential engineer or a researcher build up its interest towards science if never exposed to it systematically?
Learning about music and art is good, but not at expense of science!
This problem reminds me of the movie Memento. The lead character was unable to make any new memories and his mind was reset every two or three minutes. Nevertheless was he trying to find his wifes killer, and kept record of new leads by taking pictures with a Polaroid camera, keeping notes and tattooing pieces of information to his body. Great movie!
An interesting related question would be: What would people in a big population Q choose if given alternatives: extreme pain with probability p=1/Q or tiny pain with probability p=1. In the framework of expected utility theory you’d have to include not only the sizes of the pains and size of populations but also the risk aversion of the person asked. So its not only about adding up small utilities.
By putting a single speck of dust in somebody’s eye, you increase the probability of that person getting injured or die in an accident. Lots of these people will be driving cars, crossing roads etc at that moment. Given the size of the number (3^^^3), that action would kill @#¤%¤&-illions of people. I would rather torture one.
I see your point. A reduction of easily searched places will indeed make it more difficult for B to find the coin, even though B will have a smaller space to search. The question that remains is: given a mathematical description of the search/hide-space what probability distribution over locations (randomization process) will minimize the probability of B finding the coin.
As some comments has pointed out there are some loopholes in the original formulation, and I will do my best to close these or accept the fact that they’re not closeable (which would be interesting in its own right).
Lets try a simpler formulation.. Basically what is being asked here is that given two intelligences A and B, where A and B are identical (perfect copies), can A have a strategy that minimizes the probability of B finding the coin?
Further: Any chain of reasoning leading to a constrained set of available locations followed by randomization could be used by B to constrain the set of locations to search. Is it therefore possible to beat complete randomization?
The self-fooling problem.
Since ten years back a sub-field of quantum information theory has emerged, quantum game theory. Regard it as the intersection of quantum mechanics and game theory. It deals with game theoretical situations where the participants use entangled quantum states, quantum superposition and unitary operations as resources to gain advantages compared to classical counterparts.
I am designing and (trying) solving a quantum game using three level quantum states, qutrits (compared to the usual qubits, two level systems).
This is fantastic! I came across this site a while back and promised myself that I would submit something as soon as I could find the time. Then it slipped my occupied mind and I forgot about the very existence of LW! I happened to take a look inside tonight and the first thing I see is that there is a meetup here in Stockholm 36 hours and 15 minutes from now. What a nice coincidence! I’ll be very happy to join. I’m a sucker for all kinds of discussions. Game theory, economy, politics, decision theory, technology, artificial intelligence, fundamental questions in philosophy, physics, you name it. See you guys!
Why interfering and not letting your kid develop his own ways? Answering “How are you?” in detail sounds to me as a fantastic trait of his personality.
When I was 7-years old I stopped calling my parents mom and dad and switched over to calling them by their names. I just couldn’t understand the logic of other people call them one thing and me calling the something else. Happily nobody tried to “correct” me according to social rules, and still today it wouldn’t cross my mind to call my mother ‘mother’!