wedrifid comments on The Presumptuous Philosopher's Presumptuous Friend - Less Wrong

3 Post author: PlaidX 05 October 2009 05:26AM

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

Comments (80)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 06 October 2009 09:56:26PM *  0 points [-]

Don't know. I was planning to just make a jibe at your exclusivity logic (some jackasses do therefore all who do...).

Make that two jibes. Perhaps the votes were actually a cringe response at the comma use. ;)

Comment author: SilasBarta 06 October 2009 10:00:29PM 0 points [-]

Well, you did kinda insinuate that flipping a coin makes you a jackass, which is kind of an extreme reaction to an unconventional approach to Newcomb's problem :-P

Comment author: wedrifid 06 October 2009 10:25:53PM 0 points [-]

;) I'd make for a rather harsh Omega. If I was dropping my demi-divine goodies around I'd make it quite clear that if I predicted a randomization I'd booby trap the big box with a custard pie jack-in-a-box trap.

If I was somewhat more patient I'd just apply the natural extension, making the big box reward linearly dependent on the probabilities predicted. Then they can plot a graph of how much money they are wasting per probability they assign to making the stupid choice.

Comment author: SilasBarta 06 October 2009 10:40:41PM 0 points [-]

I'd make for a rather harsh Omega. If I was dropping my demi-divine goodies around I'd make it quite clear that if I predicted a randomization I'd booby trap the big box with a custard pie jack-in-a-box trap.

Wow, they sure are right about that "power corrupts" thing ;-)

Comment author: wedrifid 06 October 2009 11:38:40PM 0 points [-]

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts... comically?