= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Ingredients of Timeless Decision Theory - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (226)
(Looks over Tim Tyler's general trend in comments.)
Okay. It's helpful that you're doing a literature search. It's not helpful that every time you find something remotely related, you feel a need to claim that it is already TDT and that TDT is nothing innovative by comparison. It does not appear to me that you understand either the general background of these questions as they have been pursued within decision theory, or TDT in particular. Literature search is great, but if you're just spending 15 minutes Googling, then you have insufficient knowledge to compare the theories. Plenty of people have called for a decision theory that one-boxes on Newcomb and smokes on the smoking lesion - the question is coughing up something that seems reasonably formal. Plenty of people have advocated precommitment, but it comes with its own set of problems, and that is why a non-precommitment-based decision theory is important.
In the spirit of dredging up references with no actual deep insight, I note this recent post on Andrew Gelman's blog.
Well, other people have previously taken a crack at the same problem.
If they have resolved it, then I should think that would be helpful - since then you can look at their solution. If not, their efforts to solve the problem might still be enlightening.
So: I think my contribution in this area is probably helpful.
15 minutes was how long it took me to find the cited material in the first place. Not trivial - but not that hard.
No need to beat me up for not knowing the background of your own largely unpublished theory!
...but yes, in my view, advanced decision theory is a bit of a red herring for those interested in machine intelligence. It's like: that is so not the problem. It seems like wondering whether to use butter-icing or marzipan on the top of the cake - when you don't yet have the recipe or the ingredients.
The cited material isn't much different from a lot of other material in the same field.
So far, "Disposition-Based Decision Theory" (and its apparently-flawed precursor) is the only thing I have seen that apparently claims to address and solve the same problem that is under discussion in this forum:
I suppose there's also a raft of CDT enthusiasts, who explain why two-boxing is actually not a flaw in their system, and that they have no objections to the idea of agents who one-box. In their case, the debate appears to be over terminology: what does the word "rational" actually mean - is it about choosing the best action from the available options? Or does it mean something else?
Are there other attempts at a solution? Your turn for some references, I feel.
"Paradoxes of Rationality and Cooperation" (the edited volume) will give you a feel for the basics, as will reading Marion Ledwig's thesis paper.