JGWeissman comments on My Fundamental Question About Omega - Less Wrong

6 Post author: MrHen 10 February 2010 05:26PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (151)
Tags: freewill omega choice

Comments (151)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: JGWeissman 10 February 2010 06:12:59PM 3 points [-]

Omega has appeared to us inside of puzzles, games, and questions. The basic concept behind Omega is that it is (a) a perfect predictor and (b) not malevolent. The practical implications behind these points are that (a) it doesn't make mistakes and (b) you can trust its motives in the sense that it really, honestly doesn't care about you. This bugger is True Neutral and is good at it.

(a) is correct. (b) does not apply, in many cases Omega is a benefactor, but can be used in scenarios where Omega causes a net harm. The important point is that Omega is perfectly honest, the rules of the scenario are exactly what Omega says they are.

Comment author: MrHen 10 February 2010 06:17:12PM 3 points [-]

Omega is not malevolent in that it isn't out to get you. Not malevolent is different than benevolent.

Comment author: JGWeissman 10 February 2010 06:23:49PM 0 points [-]

Sometimes, Omega is malevolent.

Comment author: MrHen 10 February 2010 06:42:36PM 3 points [-]

For the sake of the point in the article, claiming that Omega is not malevolent cleans up annoying, irrelevant questions. Any application of this point would only apply to non-malevolent Omegas, sure, but I am happy with that. Once we deal with the non-malevolent Omegas we can take care of the malevolent ones.

In other words, I am not trying to strictly define Omega. I am trying to find a stepping stone to solving non-malevolent Omega problems.

The reason I stated it the way I did in the article is because most of the articles using Omega include some such clause. Solving end cases helps solve all cases.

Comment author: JGWeissman 10 February 2010 06:57:05PM 4 points [-]

You are missing the point of Omega, which is to factor out considerations of uncertainty. Omega is a perfect predictor so that we can be certain that its predictions are accurate. Omega is perfectly honest, and explains the rules of the scenario, so that we can be certain of the rules.

We don't have to worry about Omega's motivations at all, because, in a proper Omega scenario, Omega's actions in repsonse to every possible state of the scenario is exactly specified.

Comment author: MrHen 10 February 2010 07:02:29PM 2 points [-]

We don't have to worry about Omega's motivations at all, because, in a proper Omega scenario, Omega's actions in repsonse to every possible state of the scenario is exactly specified.

Right. I used the term "not malevolent" for this. What term would you have used?

Comment author: JGWeissman 10 February 2010 07:09:59PM 3 points [-]

"Has exactly specified behavior" would work.

Comment author: MrHen 10 February 2010 07:17:29PM 0 points [-]

Sure, that works. How about, "(b) has explicitly defined behavior." Does that translate okay?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit