That’s not risk aversion, it’s just decreasing marginal utility. They look different to me.
They’re really mathematically equivalent ways of expressing the same thing. If they look different to you that’s a flaw in your intuition, you may want to correct it.
Ok, let’s taboo “risk aversion”, I’m talking about what a minimax algorithm does, where it comes up with possibilities, rates them by utility, and takes actions to avoid the worst outcomes. This is contrasted to a system that also computes probabilities to get expected utilities, and acts to maximize that. Sure you can make your utility function strongly concave to hack the traits of the minimax system into a utility maximizer, but saying that they are “mathematically equivalent” seems to be missing the point.
That’s not risk aversion, it’s just decreasing marginal utility. They look different to me.
And it’s still not a terminal value, it would be instrumental.
They’re really mathematically equivalent ways of expressing the same thing. If they look different to you that’s a flaw in your intuition, you may want to correct it.
Ok, let’s taboo “risk aversion”, I’m talking about what a minimax algorithm does, where it comes up with possibilities, rates them by utility, and takes actions to avoid the worst outcomes. This is contrasted to a system that also computes probabilities to get expected utilities, and acts to maximize that. Sure you can make your utility function strongly concave to hack the traits of the minimax system into a utility maximizer, but saying that they are “mathematically equivalent” seems to be missing the point.
That’s called “certainty effect” and no one is claiming that it’s a terminal value.
Ok, thanks for the terminology help.