Larks 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: Larks 20 August 2009 11:06:12PM *  0 points [-]

Second, repeating the Counterfactual Mugging more than once tends to obscure the point,

Surely if you'd take the bet once, you'd take it any number of times, so this shouldn't make much of a difference- and I can't see how stopping algorithm / fixed number of rolls makes a difference.