thomblake comments on Desirable Dispositions and Rational Actions - Less Wrong

13 Post author: RichardChappell 17 August 2010 03:20AM

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

Comments (180)

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

Comment author: Perplexed 17 August 2010 07:47:51AM 0 points [-]

it doesn't matter if he's impossible

Are you sure? I'm not objecting to the arbitrary payoffs or complaining because he doesn't seem to be maximizing his own utility. I'm objecting to his ability to predict my actions. Give me a scenario which doesn't require me to assign a non-zero prior to woo and in which a revisionist decision theory wins. If you can't, then your "improved" decision theory is no better than woo itself.

Regarding the Absent Minded Driver, I didn't recognize the reference. Googling, I find a .pdf by one of my guys (Nobelist Robert Aumann) and an LW article by Wei-Dai. Cool, but since it is already way past my bedtime, I will have to read them in the morning and get back to you.

Comment author: thomblake 17 August 2010 05:55:23PM 6 points [-]

I'm objecting to his ability to predict my actions. Give me a scenario which doesn't require me to assign a non-zero prior to woo

The only 'woo' here seems to be your belief that your actions are not predictable (even in principle!). Even I can predict your actions within some tolerances, and we do not need to posit that I am a superintelligence! Examples: you will not hang yourself to death within the next five minutes, and you will ever make another comment on Less Wrong.

Comment author: Perplexed 17 August 2010 08:49:42PM -1 points [-]

...you will ever make another comment on Less Wrong.

"ever"? No, "never".

Comment author: thomblake 18 August 2010 12:43:44AM 2 points [-]

Wha?

In case it wasn't clear, it was a one-off prediction and I was already correct.

Comment author: Perplexed 19 August 2010 02:51:18AM 2 points [-]

In case mine wasn't clear, it was a bad Gilbert & Sullivan joke. Deservedly downvoted. Apparently.

Comment author: Alicorn 19 August 2010 02:55:51AM 4 points [-]

You need a little more context/priming or to make the joke longer for anyone to catch this. Or you need to embed it in a more substantive and sensible reply. Otherwise it will hardly ever work.

Comment author: Perplexed 19 August 2010 04:56:38AM 1 point [-]
Comment author: Alicorn 19 August 2010 04:59:51AM 1 point [-]

I'd call that a long joke, wouldn't you?

Comment author: Perplexed 19 August 2010 05:05:29AM 1 point [-]

See what I mean? I made it long and it still didn't work. :)

Comment author: Cyan 19 August 2010 04:51:22AM 0 points [-]

I wasn't sure, so I held off posting my reply (a decision I now regret). It would have been, "Well, hardly ever."