Vladimir_Nesov comments on The Blackmail Equation - Less Wrong

13 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 10 March 2010 02:46PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (87)
Tags: decision_theory newcomblike decision winning meta rationality cooperation logic coordination

Comments (87)

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

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 10 March 2010 08:58:43PM *  0 points [-]

FAWS clearly does not mean that. He means what he says he means and you disagree with him.

I don't disagree with him, because I don't see what else it could mean.

Since the game stipulates that one of the two acts before the other editing their source code is a viable option.

See the other reply -- the edited code is not an interesting fact. The communicated code must be the original one -- if it's impossible to verify, this just means it can't be effectively communicated (signalled), which implies that you can't signal your counterfactual precommitment.

Comment author: wedrifid 10 March 2010 09:09:58PM 0 points [-]

See the other reply -- the edited code is not an interesting fact. The communicated code must be the original one

No, it need not be the original code. In fact, if the Baron really wants to he can destroy all copies of the original code. This is a counterfactual actual universe. The agent that is the baron is made up of quarks which can be moved about using the normal laws of physics.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 10 March 2010 09:40:42PM *  0 points [-]

It need not be the original code, but if we are interested in the original code, then we read the communicated data as evidence about the original code -- for what it's worth. It may well be in Baron's interest to give info about his code -- since otherwise, what distinguishes him from a random jumble of wires, in which case the outcome may not be appropriate for his skills.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit