= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
bill 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)
In Newcomb, before knowing the box contents, you should one-box. If you know the contents, you should two-box (or am I wrong?)
In Prisoner, before knowing the opponent's choice, you should cooperate. After knowing the opponent's choice, you should defect (or am I wrong?).
If I'm right in the above two cases, doesn't Omega look more like the "after knowing" situations above? If so, then I must be wrong about the above two cases...
I want to be someone who in situation Y does X, but when Y&Z happens, I don't necessarily want to do X. Here, Z is the extra information that I lost (in Omega), the opponent has chosen (in Prisoner) or that both boxes have money in them (in Newcomb). What am I missing?
No - in the prisoners' dilemma, you should always defect (presuming the payoff matrix represents utility), unless you can somehow collectively pre-commit to co-operating, or it is iterative. This distinction you're thinking of only applies when reverse causation comes into play.