= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Counterfactual Mugging - 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 (257)
Nope. I don't care what quirks in my neurology do - I don't care what answer the material calculator returns, only the answer to 2 + 2 = ?
Meh, the original is badly worded.
Take 2. Omega notices a neuro-quirk. Then, based on what he's noticed, he offers you a 50/50 bet of 100$ to 43.25 dollars at just the right time with just the right intonation...
NOW do you take that bet?
...Why yes, yes you do. Even you. And you know it. it's related to why you don't think boxing an AI is the answer. only, Omega's already out of the box, and so can adjust your visual and auditory input with a much higher degree of precision.
No it isn't. Your 'Take 2' is an entirely different question. One that seems to miss the point. The question "Can Omega exploit a vulnerability of human psychology?" isn't a particularly interesting one and becomes even less so when by the definition of Omega and the problem specification the answer is either "Yes" or "I deny the counterfactual" regardless of anything to do with vulnerabilities in human intellectual capabilities.
oh. whoops.... so more like a way of poking holes in the strategy "i will do whatever I would have precommitted to do"?
A way of trying to, yes.