Matt_Stevenson comments on Explicit Optimization of Global Strategy (Fixing a Bug in UDT1) - Less Wrong

17 Post author: Wei_Dai 19 February 2010 01:30AM

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

Comments (38)

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

Comment author: Matt_Stevenson 19 February 2010 04:25:39AM *  2 points [-]

Here you are relying on omega using two ordering systems that we already find highly correlated.

What if Omega asked you to choose between a blegg and a rube instead of A and B. Along with that, Omega tells you that it did not necessarily use the same ordering of blegg and rube when posing the question to the copy.

EDIT: More thoughts: If you can't rely on an obvious correlation between the player labels and choices, why not have a strategy to make a consistent mapping from the player labels to the choices.

The key to winning this game is having both parties disagree. If both parties know the goal and have a consistent mapping process, it would be trivial for them to arrive at different choices.

A simple mapping would be alphabetize the player labels and the choice labels. Player(1) => choice(1), Player(2) => choice(2), Player(n) => choice(n).

Comment author: timtyler 19 February 2010 08:35:14AM 1 point [-]

Lexicographic ordering is indeed the most obvious one here.