# Difference between revisions of "Talk:The utility function is not up for grabs"

Line 4: | Line 4: | ||

It seems to me that it should be "the utility function is up for grabs". Posterior probabilities follow inextricably from prior probabilities; you have no choice in the matter, but you can have your own utility function. --[[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] 02:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC) | It seems to me that it should be "the utility function is up for grabs". Posterior probabilities follow inextricably from prior probabilities; you have no choice in the matter, but you can have your own utility function. --[[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] 02:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC) | ||

+ | : The summary as given is wrong, the point is that utility function is like prior, it's not something you can change, it's part of the problem statement. --[[User:Vladimir Nesov|Vladimir Nesov]] 15:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC) |

## Latest revision as of 02:46, 16 January 2012

Another page that doesn't link to any Less Wrong blog posts, or any other external references. This automatically qualifies it as either a stub, or as original research, both of which are bad, according to this wiki's (unwritten?) standards. --PeerInfinity 02:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Added the blogposts link, this is another concept in the something-to-protect/rationalists-should-win *&c.* cluster of ideas, but I think it deserves its own page. --Zack M. Davis 02:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that it should be "the utility function is up for grabs". Posterior probabilities follow inextricably from prior probabilities; you have no choice in the matter, but you can have your own utility function. --DanielLC 02:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

- The summary as given is wrong, the point is that utility function is like prior, it's not something you can change, it's part of the problem statement. --Vladimir Nesov 15:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)