= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on The AI in a box boxes you - 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 (378)
No. It produces better outcomes. That's the point.
The information is welcome. It just doesn't make it sane to be blackmailed. Wei Dai's formulation frames it as being 'updateless' but there is no requirement to refuse information. The reasoning is something you almost grasped when you used the description:
Acausal trades are similar to normal trades. You only accept the good ones.
Eliezer doesn't get blackmailed in such situations. You do. Start your chant.
This has been covered elsewhere in this thread as well as plenty of other times on the the forum since you joined. The difference isn't whether torture or destruction is happening. The distinction that matters is whether the blackmailer is doing something worse than their own Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement for the purpose of attempting to influence you.
If the UFAI gains benefit torturing people independently of influencing you but offers to stop in exchange for something then that isn't blackmail. It is a trade that you consider like any other.
Wedrifid, please don't assume the conclusion. I know it's a rather obvious conclusion, but dammit, we're going to demonstrate it anyway.
The entire point of this discussion is addressing the idea that blackmailers can, perhaps, modify the Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement (although it wasn't phrased like that.) Somewhat relevant when they can, presumably, self-modify, create new agents which will then trade with you, or maybe just act as if they had using TDT reasoning.
If you're not interested in answering this criticism ... well, fair enough. But I'd appreciate it if you don't answer things out of context, it rather confuses things?
In the grandparent I directly answered both the immediate context (that was quoted) and the broader context. In particular I focussed on explaining the difference between an offer and a threat. That distinction is rather critical and also something you directly asked about.
It so happens that you don't want there to be an answer to the rhetorical question you asked. Fortunately (for decision theorists) there is one in this case. There is a joint in reality here. It applies even to situations that don't add in any confounding "acausal" considerations. Note that this is different to the challenging problem of distributing gains from trade. In those situations 'negotiation' and 'extortion' really are equivalent.