In reply to:

How did you do that? There was no reply to that comment when I reloaded the page after retracting it in order to delete it. Are you a ninja or something?

Worse, a multitasker. That kind of things wreaks havoc on race conditions.

I've removed my reply and the associated quote.

Worse, a multitasker. That kind of things wreaks havoc on race conditions.

I know... Minutes ago I lost a hand in an online poker game (with fake money, fortunately) as a result of being talking to someone else at the same time for the umpteenth time.

I've removed my reply and the associated quote.

And I've removed the parenthetical in my reply to you.

The Domain of Your Utility Function

Unofficial Followup to: Fake Selfishness, Post Your Utility Function

A perception-determined utility function is one which is determined only by the perceptual signals your mind receives from the world; for instance, pleasure minus pain. A noninstance would be number of living humans. There's an argument in favor of perception-determined utility functions which goes like this: clearly, the state of your mind screens off the state of the outside world from your decisions. Therefore, the argument to your utility function is not a world-state, but a mind-state, and so, when choosing between outcomes, you can only judge between anticipated experiences, and not external consequences. If one says, "I would willingly die to save the lives of others," the other replies, "that is only because you anticipate great satisfaction in the moments before death - enough satisfaction to outweigh the rest of your life put together."

Let's call this dogma perceptually determined utility. PDU can be criticized on both descriptive and prescriptive grounds. On descriptive grounds, we may observe that it is psychologically unrealistic for a human to experience a lifetime's worth of satisfaction in a few moments. (I don't have a good reference for this, but) I suspect that our brains count pain and joy in something like unary, rather than using a place-value system, so it is not possible to count very high.

The argument I've outlined for PDU is prescriptive, however, so I'd like to refute it on such grounds. To see what's wrong with the argument, let's look at some diagrams. Here's a picture of you doing an expected utility calculation - using a perception-determined utility function such as pleasure minus pain.

Here's what's happening: you extrapolate several (preferably all) possible futures that can result from a given plan. In each possible future, you extrapolate what would happen to you personally, and calculate the pleasure minus pain you would experience. You call this the utility of that future. Then you take a weighted average of the utilities of each future — the weights are probabilities. In this way you calculate the expected utility of your plan.

But this isn't the most general possible way to calculate utilities.

Instead, we could calculate utilities based on any properties of the extrapolated futures — anything at all, such as how many people there are, how many of those people have ice cream cones, etc. Our preferences over lotteries will be consistent with the Von Neumann-Morgenstern axioms. The basic error of PDU is to confuse the big box (labeled "your mind") with the tiny boxes labeled "Extrapolated Mind A," and so on. The inputs to your utility calculation exist inside your mind, but that does not mean they have to come from your extrapolated future mind.

So that's it! You're free to care about family, friends, humanity, fluffy animals, and all the wonderful things in the universe, and decision theory won't try to stop you — in fact, it will help.

Edit: Changed "PD" to "PDU."

Comments

sorted by
magical algorithm
Highlighting new comments since Today at 12:00 AM
Select new highlight date
All comments loaded

A mild defense of PDU:

If one says, "I would willingly die to save the lives of others," the other replies, "that is only because you anticipate great satisfaction in the moments before death - enough satisfaction to outweigh the rest of your life put together."

The other could also reply: "You say now that you would die because it gives you pleasure now to think of yourself as the sort of person who would die to save others. Moreover, if you do someday actually sacrifice yourself for others, it would be because the disutility of shattering your self-perception would seem to outweigh (in that moment) the disutility of dying."

(And now we have come back yet again to Newcomb, it seems.)

"Would you kill someone for $100, if after killing them I could drug/hypnotize you so that you won't remember, and you'll never be able to find out?" You'd likely answer "yes" if your utility function is PD and "no" otherwise.

It is a rare person indeed who would answer 'yes' to that question (without being frivolous). It implies valuing signalling honesty more than signalling not-planning-to-kill-folks. MoR!Quirrel might, depending on who he was talking to.

I know a lot of people who I expect would answer 'yes' for a hundred thousand dollars when talking to me -- maybe with a "depends on the person" caveat. A few for $1000. But $100? Yeah, not very many.

I suspect that threshold has more to do with the average level of wealth of my cohort than with our willingness to signal honesty.

A hundred thousand is a lot of money! I deserve lots of trite costless signalling points for saying I wouldn't accept that offer. I'm holding out for a mil. Or at least a half! ;)

I suspect that threshold has more to do with the average level of wealth of my cohort than with our willingness to signal honesty.

I would simply not trust the person making the offer for 100$. How do they make the consequences go away? Surely that costs at least a few thousand, assuming we're in a stable country. So why pay me so little? Besides the risk though, I don't see why murder should be expensive. It's not exactly complicated, assuming an unsuspecting civilian target. 100$ seems like a reasonable sum for the amount of work.

I don't know that MoR!Quirrell would care about the memory wipe at all. Money is money.

I hadn't considered the possibility of lying. Make that “You likely would do that if ..., and you likely wouldn't otherwise.” Also, the amount of money and/or the number of people killed can be raised as needed for rich people/people who could kill one person for money anyway.

(I would also usually specify "and there are no other consequences to you" as well given that most of the reason not to kill people is practical.)

I don't think this post adequately distinguishes between two concepts: how does the human utility function actually work, and how should it work.

The answer to the first question is (I thought people here agreed) that humans weren't actually utility maximizers; this makes things like your descriptive argument against perceptive determinism unnecessary and a lot of your wording misleading.

The second question is: if we're making some artificial utility function for an AI or just to prove a philosophical point, how should that work - and I think your answer is spot on. I would hope that people don't really disagree with you here and are just getting bogged down by confusion about real brains and some map-territory distinctions and importing epistemology where it's not really necessary.

Agreed. This post seems to add little to the discourse. However, it's useful to write clear, concise posts to sum these things up from time to time. With pictures!

The second question is: if we're making some artificial utility function for an AI or just to prove a philosophical point, how should that work - and I think your answer is spot on. I would hope that people don't really disagree with you here and are just getting bogged down by confusion about real brains and some map-territory distinctions and importing epistemology where it's not really necessary.

Where I've seen people use PDUs in AI or philosophy, they weren't confused, but rather chose to make the assumption of perception-determined utility functions (or even more restrictive assumptions) in order to prove some theorems. See these examples:

Here's a non-example, where the author managed to prove theorems without the PDU assumption:

I wrote earlier:

Where I've seen people use PDUs in AI or philosophy, they weren't confused, but rather chose to make the assumption of perception-determined utility functions (or even more restrictive assumptions) in order to prove some theorems.

Well, here's a recent SIAI paper that uses perception-determined utility functions, but apparently not in order to prove theorems (since the paper contains no theorems). The author was advised by Peter de Blanc, who two years ago wrote the OP arguing against PDUs. Which makes me confused: does the author (Daniel Dewey) really think that PDUs are a good idea, and does Peter now agree?

A counterexample to the claim "psychologically normal humans (implicitly) have a utility function that looks something like a PDU function":

Your best friend is deathly ill. I give you a choice between Pill A and Pill B.

If you choose Pill A and have your friend swallow it, he will heal - but he will release a pheromone that will leave you convinced for the rest of your life that he died (and you won't interact with him ever again).

If you choose Pill B and swallow it, your friend will die - but you will be convinced for the rest of your life that he has fully healed, and is just on a different planet or something. From time to time you will hallucinate pleasant conversations with him, and will never be the wiser.

No, you can't have both pills. Presumably you will choose Pill A. You do not (only) desire to be in a state of mind where you believe your friend is healthy. You desire that your friend be healthy. You seek the object of your desire, not the state of mind produced by the object of your desire.

My brain has this example tagged as “similar to but not the same as something I’ve read”, but tell me if this is stolen.

From time to time you will hallucinate pleasant conversations with him, and will never be the wiser.

If I can't distinguish my hallucinations from the real person, then as per the Generalized Anti-Zombie Principle the hallucinations are just as sapient as himself.

How did you do that? There was no reply to that comment when I reloaded the page after retracting it in order to delete it. Are you a ninja or something? :-)

How did you do that? There was no reply to that comment when I reloaded the page after retracting it in order to delete it. Are you a ninja or something?

Worse, a multitasker. That kind of things wreaks havoc on race conditions.

I've removed my reply and the associated quote.

Worse, a multitasker. That kind of things wreaks havoc on race conditions.

I know... Minutes ago I lost a hand in an online poker game (with fake money, fortunately) as a result of being talking to someone else at the same time for the umpteenth time.

I've removed my reply and the associated quote.

And I've removed the parenthetical in my reply to you.

How did you do that?

One probably just needs to keep open the browser tab from a time when your post had not yet been deleted...

When I read "PD" here I automatically think "prisoner's dilemma", no matter how many times I go back and reread "perceptual determinism".

ETA: thanks