= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MrHen comments on My Fundamental Question About Omega - 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 (151)
Omega is not malevolent in that it isn't out to get you. Not malevolent is different than benevolent.
Sometimes, Omega is malevolent.
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.
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.
Right. I used the term "not malevolent" for this. What term would you have used?
"Has exactly specified behavior" would work.
Sure, that works. How about, "(b) has explicitly defined behavior." Does that translate okay?