Question: do people think this post was too long? In the beginning, I thought that it would be a good idea to give a rough overview of DFT to give an idea of some of the ways by which pure utility functions could be made more reflective of actual human behavior. Near the end, though, I was starting to wonder if it would’ve been better to just sum it up in, say, three paragraphs.
I do think that it’s longer than necessary, and that the central point as stated in the title is far more important than the details of the seven theories. Still, I wish I could upvote it more than once, since that central point is really important. (Or at least it really annoys me when people talk as if humans did have utility functions.)
Agreed, but I’d say that people do have a utility function—it’s just that
it may be so complex that it’s better seen as a kind of metaphor than as a
mathematical construct you can actual do something with.
I share your annoyance—there seems to be a bias among some to use
maths-derived language where it is not very helpful.
You might still be able to determine a manageable utility function for a lower
animal. For humans it’s simply too complex—at least in 2010, just like the
function that predicts next week’s weather.
I upvoted it because this really needs to be pointed out regularly, but I do think that it’s too long, and that the descriptions of the seven theories add very little.
Question: do people think this post was too long? In the beginning, I thought that it would be a good idea to give a rough overview of DFT to give an idea of some of the ways by which pure utility functions could be made more reflective of actual human behavior. Near the end, though, I was starting to wonder if it would’ve been better to just sum it up in, say, three paragraphs.
I found it a bit long. I wish you’d done both: a short description followed by more detail.
I do think that it’s longer than necessary, and that the central point as stated in the title is far more important than the details of the seven theories. Still, I wish I could upvote it more than once, since that central point is really important. (Or at least it really annoys me when people talk as if humans did have utility functions.)
Agreed, but I’d say that people do have a utility function—it’s just that it may be so complex that it’s better seen as a kind of metaphor than as a mathematical construct you can actual do something with.
I share your annoyance—there seems to be a bias among some to use maths-derived language where it is not very helpful.
If utility isn’t a mathematical construct you can do something with, then it’s an empty concept.
You might still be able to determine a manageable utility function for a lower animal. For humans it’s simply too complex—at least in 2010, just like the function that predicts next week’s weather.
I will believe this only when I see it done.
I do not expect to see it done, no matter how low the animal.
I found the detail helpful. Even more detail might have been good, but you’d have had to write a sequence.
Not too long. The buildup between the theories was key in keeping my attention.
I upvoted it because this really needs to be pointed out regularly, but I do think that it’s too long, and that the descriptions of the seven theories add very little.