= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on AI cooperation in practice - 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 (157)
Nothing depends on the details of proof verifier, since it completely covers all proofs up to some length, a set of proofs which is completely defined by the logical language. The arguments of proves(-,-) determine its value (and it's even a primitive recursive function).
...but the the "logical language" is not specified! That is one of the implementation details that is missing in the problem specification.
You know, there are always unstated assumptions, like sanity of the reader.
Usually, when posing puzzles, it is best to try to minimise the number of unstated assumptions the solution depends upon - or there won't be a unique answer.