Vladimir_Nesov comments on Another attempt to explain UDT - Less Wrong

35 Post author: cousin_it 14 November 2010 04:52PM

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

Comments (50)

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

Comment author: Gary_Drescher 18 November 2010 05:54:18PM *  1 point [-]

2) "Agent simulates predictor"

This basically says that the predictor is a rock, doesn't depend on agent's decision,

True, it doesn't "depend" on the agent's decision in the specific sense of "dependency" defined by currently-formulated UDT. The question (as with any proposed DT) is whether that's in fact the right sense of "dependency" (between action and utility) to use for making decisions. Maybe it is, but the fact that UDT itself says so is insufficient reason to agree.

[EDIT: fixed typo]

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 18 November 2010 09:01:51PM 0 points [-]

Maybe it is, but the fact that UDT itself says so is insufficient reason to agree.

The arguments behind UDT's choice of dependence could prove strong enough to resolve this case as well. The fact that we are arguing about UDT's answer in no way disqualifies UDT's arguments.

My current position on ASP is that reasoning used in motivating it exhibits "explicit dependence bias". I'll need to (and probably will) write another top-level post on this topic to improve on what I've already written here and on the decision theory list.