📢

Inferring utility functions from locally non-transitive preferences

📅 2022
public awareness
⚪ Common
#ai #utility functions

📖 Description

As part of the [AI Safety Camp](https://aisafety.camp/), I've been diving a bit deeper into the foundations of expected utility theory and preference learning. In this post, I am making explicit a connection between those two things that (I assume) many people already made implicitly. But I couldn't find a nice exposition of this argument so I wrote it up. Any feedback is of course highly welcome!

📊 Game Impacts

Variable Change Condition
Research +5 Always
Vibey Doom +2 Always
Ethics Risk -5 Always

💭 Reactions

🔬 Safety Researcher Reaction: ⚠️ Placeholder - Needs Real Quote
"Interesting perspective on safety challenges"
📰 Media Reaction: ⚠️ Placeholder - Needs Real Quote
"Discussed in AI safety community"
💡 Found a Real Quote? Suggest it here

🔗 Sources

🏷️ Event Metadata

Think this event's metadata could be improved? Suggest changes to category, rarity, tags, game impacts, or p(doom) effects.

📁 Category Public Awareness → Suggest different category
⭐ Rarity ⚪ Common → Suggest different rarity
🏷️ Tags (2) ai, utility functions → Suggest tag changes
📊 Game Impacts (3) 3 variable changes → Suggest impact changes
☢️ p(Doom) Impact No direct impact → Suggest p(doom) change
📝 General Metadata Year, description, reactions → Comprehensive review

🤝 Found an Issue?

This event data is sourced from the pdoom-data repository. If you notice errors or want to suggest improvements:

GitHub Issue (Preferred) 📧 Email (No GitHub)
← Back to All Events