Hm, I never before realized that operant conditioning is a blurring of the beliefs and values—the new frequency of barking can be explained either by a change of the utility of barking, or by a change in the belief about what will result from the barking.
IMO, “a blurring of beliefs and values” is an unhelpful way of looking at what happens. It is best to consider an agent as valuing freedom from pain, and the association between barking and poker prods to be one of its beliefs.
If you have separated out values from beliefs in a way that leads to frequently updated values, all that means is that you have performed the abstraction incorrectly.
Hm, I never before realized that operant conditioning is a blurring of the beliefs and values—the new frequency of barking can be explained either by a change of the utility of barking, or by a change in the belief about what will result from the barking.
IMO, “a blurring of beliefs and values” is an unhelpful way of looking at what happens. It is best to consider an agent as valuing freedom from pain, and the association between barking and poker prods to be one of its beliefs.
If you have separated out values from beliefs in a way that leads to frequently updated values, all that means is that you have performed the abstraction incorrectly.