= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on Decision theory: Why we need to reduce “could”, “would”, “should” - 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 (46)
In contrast to 30+ year-old rationalists justifying ethical behavior ("one-boxing") on the grounds that they could be in a simulation run by someone trying to decide whether to defect or cooperate with them in the overworld?
Eliezer: "50-year-old scientists making up their own religions"
Silas: "In contrast to 30+ year-old rationalists justifying"
Eliezer is not yet 30. He'll turn thirty in a few days, though.
Clearly this is grounds for another Overcoming Bias Bay Area Meetup. Meetup! Meetup!
I didn't mean to refer to Eliezer_Yudkowsky. I just meant that if you put together a lot of the Newcomb and Simulation Argument theorizing, you get something quite similar to currently-existing religions. I was going to make it into a top-level post with all the parts spelled out, but figured it wouldn't be welcome here.
The comment you responded to is the best one-sentence summary I can give though.
If we learn we are in a world that rewards two-boxing with more utility than one-boxing, "one-boxers" two-box and "two boxers" two-box.
If we learn we are in a world that rewards one-boxing with more utility that two-boxing, "one-boxers" one box and "two-boxers" two-box.
We do not assume we are in either such world. Making up your own atheism consisting of "don't do the unjustified thing" isn't the same as making up your own religion by poorly justifying the unjustified thing.