Vladimir_Nesov comments on Outlawing Anthropics: An Updateless Dilemma - Less Wrong

26 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 08 September 2009 06:31PM

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

Comments (194)

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

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 14 September 2009 07:01:19AM *  0 points [-]

If there is some probability of A cheating even if B precommits to punishment, but with odds in B's favor, the situation where B needs to implement punishment is quite possible (expected). Likewise, if B precommiting to punish A is predicted to lead to an even worse outcome than not punishing (because of punishment expenses), UDT B won't punish A. Futhermore, a probability of cheating and not-punishment of cheating (mixed strategies, possibly on logical uncertainty to defy the laws of the game if pure strategies are required) is a mechanism through which the players can (consensually) bargain with each other in the resulting parallel game, an issue Wei Dai mentioned in the other reply. B doesn't need absolute certainty at any stage, in both cases.

Also, in UDT there are no logical certainties, as it doesn't update on logical conclusions as well.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 September 2009 06:12:07PM 0 points [-]

If there is some probability of A cheating even if B precommits to punishment

Sure, but that's the convenient setup. What if for A to cheat means that you necessarily just mistaken about which algorithm A runs?

Also, in UDT there are no logical certainties, as it doesn't update on logical conclusions as well.

UDT will be logically certain about some things but not others. If UDT B "doesn't update" on its computation about what A will do in response to B, it's going to be in trouble.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 20 September 2009 02:09:50PM *  0 points [-]

What if for A to cheat means that you necessarily just mistaken about which algorithm A runs?

A decision algorithm should never be mistaken, only uncertain.

UDT will be logically certain about some things but not others. If UDT B "doesn't update" on its computation about what A will do in response to B, it's going to be in trouble.

"Doesn't update" doesn't mean that it doesn't use the info (but you know that, so what do you mean?). A logical conclusion can be a parameter in a strategy, without making the algorithm unable to reason about what it would be like if the conclusion was different, that is basically about uncertainty of same algorithm in other states of knowledge.