RickJS 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.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (226)
Today I finally came up with a simple example where TDT clearly loses and CDT clearly wins, and as a bonus, proves that TDT isn't reflectively consistent.
Omega comes to you and says
Say the payoffs of the PD are
Suppose you submit an AI running CDT. Then, Omega's AIs will reason as follows: "I have 1/2 chance of playing against a TDT, and 1/2 chance of playing against a CDT. If I play C, then my opponent will play C if it's a TDT, and D if it's a CDT, therefore my expected payoff is 5/2+0/2=2.5. If I play D, then my opponent will play D, so my payoff is 1. Therefore I should play C." Your AI then gets a payoff of 6, since it will play D.
Suppose you submit an AI running TDT instead. Then everyone will play C, so your AI will get a payoff of 5.
So you submit a CDT, whether you are running CDT or TDT. That's because explicitly giving the source code of your submitted AI to the other AIs makes the consequences of your decision the same under CDT and under TDT.
Suppose you have to play this game yourself instead of delegating it, you can self-modify, and the payoffs are large enough, you'd modify yourself from running TDT to running some other DT that plays D in this game! (Notice that I specified that Omega's AIs can't self-modify, so your decision to self-modify won't have the logical consequence that they also self-modify.)
It seems that I've given a counter-example to the claim that
Or does my example fall outside of the specified problem class?
Wei_Dai wrote on 19 August 2009 07:08:23AM :
That seems to violate the secrecy assumptions of the Prisoner's Dilemma problem! I thought each prisoner has to commit to his action before learning what the other one did. What am I missing?
Thanks!