= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobinZ comments on Omega's subcontracting to Alpha - 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 (90)
I don't understand the theory, but the one-boxing solution seems obvious: given that Omega is correct, if I am such that I would refuse the £10, I would not be offered the choice unless the £1 000 000 is in the envelope, therefore I should refuse the £10 ...
... unless I believe Omega is over u(£1 000 000)/u(£10) times more likely to offer the deal to agents who take the £10 than to agents who refuse. In that case, being willing to take the £10 is expected to pay off.
Edit (after timtyler's reply): Vladimir Nesov's analysis has caused me to reconsider - I would now take the £10.
That seems like a reasonable analysis to me - assuming that you get to keep the contents of the envelope.
So: the solution depends on information about Omega's motivation not included in the problem description. Time to consult those mythology textbooks, methinks - so we have appropriate priors :-/
[edit: scratch this - I get it now!]