SforSingularity comments on You have just been Counterfactually Mugged! - Less Wrong

4 Post author: CronoDAS 19 August 2009 10:24PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (22)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 19 August 2009 11:08:16PM 11 points [-]

I will if Michael Vassar judges that any reputational damage from the comment has an expected value less than $14.

You did it wrong on two counts: First, you need to ask me to pay you money, so the two utilities are easily commensurable and there's no question of interpreting the results. Second, repeating the Counterfactual Mugging more than once tends to obscure the point, especially given the implication that you had a stopping algorithm rather than a fixed number of iterations. Of course it is now too late to do it over again correctly.

But with a trusted witness of the original die roll, or say paying $20 if the 100th decimal digit of pi (unknown to me currently) is 0, and otherwise demanding $1, we could totally mug, say, Derek Parfit and see what happens. Actually, I think I'll forward this suggestion to Anders Sandberg and see what happens if he mugs Nick Bostrom. No one tell Bostrom before then, please.

Comment author: SforSingularity 19 August 2009 11:15:45PM 0 points [-]

Expected reputational damage is probably $a few hundred IMO. It could be picked up and used as ammunition against SIAI.

Comment author: JamesAndrix 20 August 2009 04:11:48PM 8 points [-]

Few will care about a silly comment on one post, especially given the context. Anybody using it as ammunition will look really petty.

Better ammunition:"But when Eliezer was counterfactually mugged, he didn't pay. How serious is he on his decision theory?"

Even if the procedural problems here give him a good reason not to 'pay', paying is better rhetorically. (though he may clarify that he won't pay under similarly sloppy conditions again.)

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 August 2009 06:25:29PM 3 points [-]

Even if the procedural problems here give him a good reason not to 'pay', paying is better rhetorically.

But that isn't supposed to be part of the Counterfactual Mugging scenario! Anyone would pay then.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 20 August 2009 09:52:25PM 0 points [-]

Few will care about a silly comment on one post, especially given the context. Anybody using it as ammunition will look really petty.

I disagree. I think it could be used very effectively without explanation alongside a more serious criticism, possibly with a permalink to the actual comment.

Comment author: SforSingularity 20 August 2009 08:42:56PM 0 points [-]

it would all be more clear-cut if the amounts involved were a few hundred $. But yes, good point.