humpolec comments on Diplomacy as a Game Theory Laboratory - Less Wrong

44 Post author: Yvain 12 November 2010 10:19PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (93)
Tags: games

Comments (93)

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

Comment author: humpolec 14 November 2010 07:24:01PM 0 points [-]

Is there a link to an online explanation of this? When are the consequences of breaking an oath worse than a destroyed world? What did "world" mean when he said it? Humans? Earth? Humans on Earth? Energy in the Multiverse?

Prices or Bindings

Suppose someone comes to a rationalist Confessor and says: "You know, tomorrow I'm planning to wipe out the human species using this neat biotech concoction I cooked up in my lab." What then? Should you break the seal of the confessional to save humanity?

It appears obvious to me that the issues here are just those of the one-shot Prisoner's Dilemma, and I do not consider it obvious that you should defect on the one-shot PD if the other player cooperates in advance on the expectation that you will cooperate as well.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 15 November 2010 01:13:39AM *  0 points [-]

Thanks! I had read that, but had forgotten about it. Perhaps EY's position makes more sense within timeless decision theory? Since it seems to be based on an absolute requirement for integrity of pre-commitment.

On the other hand, he did not express disapproval of sinking the ship to stop the German nuclear bomb. What if Haukelid had had to promise not to harm the ship, in order to get access to it?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit