5 ms·

the term you're looking for is pascal's mugging, and it originates from within rationalism

IshKebab 2y ago
It seems a bit nonsense to me. > The mugger argues back that for any low but strictly greater than 0 probability of being able to pay back a large amount of money (or pure utility) there exists a finite amount that makes it rational to take the bet. This is a basic logic error. It ignores the very obvious fact that increasing the reward amount decreases the probability that it will be returned. E.g. if the probability of the reward R being returned is (0.5/R) we get "a low by strictly greater than 0 probability", and for that probability there is a (different) finite reward that would make it rational to take the bet, but it's not R. This is even simpler and more stupid than the "proofs" that 0=1. It does not change my opinion that philosophers (and lesswrong) are idiots.
- stuartjohnson12 2y ago
  That's what the person responding to meant - attempts to make human systems "rational" often involves simplifying dependent probabilities and presenting them as independent. The rationalist community both frequently makes this reasoning error and is aware they frequently make this error, and coined this term to refer to the category of reasoning mistake.
  - IshKebab 2y ago
    > coined this term to refer to the category of reasoning mistake. That's not at all what the Wikipedia article for it says. It presents it as an interesting paradox with several potential (and incorrect!) "remedies" rather than a category of basic logical errors.
    - close04 2y ago
      The “quadrillion days of happiness” offered to a rational person gives away that such allegories are anthropomorphized just for the sake of presentation. For the sake of what the philosophers mean, you should probably imagine this as an algorithm running on a machine (no AGI). It’s a mental tease, not a manual on how to react when faced with a mugger who forgot his weapon at home but has an interesting proposition to make. Similarly the trolley problem isn’t really about real humans in that situation, or else the correct answer would always be “do nothing”. It’s what the comment here [0] says. If you try to analyze everything purely rationally it will lead to dark corners of misunderstanding and madness. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42902931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42902931
      - IshKebab 2y ago
        > The “quadrillion days of happiness” offered to a rational person gives away that such allegories are anthropomorphized just for the sake of presentation. So what? It's still presented as if it's a interesting problem that needs to be "remedied", when in fact it's just a basic maths mistake. If I said "ooo look at this paradox: 1 + 1 = 2, but if I add another one then we get 1 + 1 + 1 = 2, which is clearly false! I call this IshKebab's mugging.", you would rightly say "that is dumb; go away" rather than write a Wikipedia article about the "paradox" and "remedies". > Similarly the trolley problem isn’t really about real humans in that situation, or else the correct answer would always be “do nothing”. It absolutely wouldn't. I don't know how anyone with any morals could claim that.
        tacitusarc 2y ago
        Interestingly, the trolley problem is decided every day, and humanity does not change tracks. There are people who die waiting for organ donors, and a single donor could match multiple people. We do not find an appropriate donor and harvest them. This is the trolley problem, applied.
        bee_rider 2y ago
        Yea, it doesn’t seem quite right to say that the trolley problem isn’t about really people. I mean the physical mechanical system isn’t there but it is a direct abstraction of decisions we make every day.
        close04 2y ago
        > the trolley problem isn’t about really people My actual words quoted below give one extra detail that makes all the difference, one that I see people silently dropped in a rush to reply. The words were aimed at someone taking these problems in a too literal sense, as extra evidence that they are not to be taken as such but as food for though that has real life applicability. > the trolley problem isn’t really about real humans in that situation
        2y ago

It seems a bit nonsense to me. > The mugger argues back that for any low but strictly greater than 0 probability of being able to pay back a large amount of money (or pure utility) there exists a finite amount that makes it rational to take the bet. This is a basic logic error. It ignores the very obvious fact that increasing the reward amount decreases the probability that it will be returned. E.g. if the probability of the reward R being returned is (0.5/R) we get "a low by strictly greater than 0 probability", and for that probability there is a (different) finite reward that would make it rational to take the bet, but it's not R. This is even simpler and more stupid than the "proofs" that 0=1. It does not change my opinion that philosophers (and lesswrong) are idiots.

stuartjohnson12 2y ago
That's what the person responding to meant - attempts to make human systems "rational" often involves simplifying dependent probabilities and presenting them as independent. The rationalist community both frequently makes this reasoning error and is aware they frequently make this error, and coined this term to refer to the category of reasoning mistake.
- IshKebab 2y ago
  > coined this term to refer to the category of reasoning mistake. That's not at all what the Wikipedia article for it says. It presents it as an interesting paradox with several potential (and incorrect!) "remedies" rather than a category of basic logical errors.
  - close04 2y ago
    The “quadrillion days of happiness” offered to a rational person gives away that such allegories are anthropomorphized just for the sake of presentation. For the sake of what the philosophers mean, you should probably imagine this as an algorithm running on a machine (no AGI). It’s a mental tease, not a manual on how to react when faced with a mugger who forgot his weapon at home but has an interesting proposition to make. Similarly the trolley problem isn’t really about real humans in that situation, or else the correct answer would always be “do nothing”. It’s what the comment here [0] says. If you try to analyze everything purely rationally it will lead to dark corners of misunderstanding and madness. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42902931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42902931
    - IshKebab 2y ago
      > The “quadrillion days of happiness” offered to a rational person gives away that such allegories are anthropomorphized just for the sake of presentation. So what? It's still presented as if it's a interesting problem that needs to be "remedied", when in fact it's just a basic maths mistake. If I said "ooo look at this paradox: 1 + 1 = 2, but if I add another one then we get 1 + 1 + 1 = 2, which is clearly false! I call this IshKebab's mugging.", you would rightly say "that is dumb; go away" rather than write a Wikipedia article about the "paradox" and "remedies". > Similarly the trolley problem isn’t really about real humans in that situation, or else the correct answer would always be “do nothing”. It absolutely wouldn't. I don't know how anyone with any morals could claim that.
      - tacitusarc 2y ago
        Interestingly, the trolley problem is decided every day, and humanity does not change tracks. There are people who die waiting for organ donors, and a single donor could match multiple people. We do not find an appropriate donor and harvest them. This is the trolley problem, applied.
        bee_rider 2y ago
        Yea, it doesn’t seem quite right to say that the trolley problem isn’t about really people. I mean the physical mechanical system isn’t there but it is a direct abstraction of decisions we make every day.
        close04 2y ago
        > the trolley problem isn’t about really people My actual words quoted below give one extra detail that makes all the difference, one that I see people silently dropped in a rush to reply. The words were aimed at someone taking these problems in a too literal sense, as extra evidence that they are not to be taken as such but as food for though that has real life applicability. > the trolley problem isn’t really about real humans in that situation
        2y ago