Discussion for Eliezer Yudkowsky's paper: Timeless Decision Theory

Alexei

I have not seen any place to discuss Eliezer Yudkowsky's new paper, titled Timeless Decision Theory, so I decided to create a discussion post. (Have I missed an already existing post or discussion?)

But that is an absurd request for explanation, because you are demanding that two false statements be accepted as hypotheses:

That shoplifting is risk-free.

That everyone adheres to a particular normative decision theory.

No, I'm showing that they can't both be true. (Btw, what does "normative" add to your meaning here.) (1) is false, but easily close enough to truth for our purposes.

As I see it, given your unrealistic hypotheses, the winning strategy is to shoplift, but convince other people that they win by not shoplifting.

Hence the parallel to Newcomb's problem, where the "winning" strategy is to two-box, but convince Omega you'll one-box, and hence the tension between whether the "individual" or "society" perspective is correct here.

If you would deem it optimal to shoplift, worse stores are available in the first place, just as if you would deem it optimal to two-box, emptier boxes are available in the first place.

Something motivates people not to shoplift given present conditions, which is isomorphic to one-boxing "given" that Omega has left. So, I claim, it's a real life case of people consistently one-boxing. A world (or at least, community) in which people deem it more optimal to shoplift has different (and worse) opportunities than one in which people do not. Their decisions "in the moment" are not unrelated to what kind of community they are in the first place.

["Shoplifting is risk-free"] is false, but easily close enough to truth for our purposes.

I don't think so. Shoplifting is more and less risky in different places and situations. I bet that the amount of shoplifting is monotone increasing in the amount of risk, even when that amount is relatively small. If that's true, then "why don't people shoplift more" doesn't require an explanation beyond "because they don't want to take the risk." Do you disagree?

2Perplexed15y

I suspect that this claim is at the heart of the dispute. I think that it is far from close enough to the truth. The reason people don't shoplift is that they fear the consequences. There is no mystery to be explained. Except perhaps why people are sufficiently motivated by fear of being temporarily physically constrained by a store-owner or security guard and publicly shamed (typical punishment for a first offense). [...] It serves to emphasize the type-error that I see in your request. You seem to be criticizing one normative theory (CDT) while promoting another (UDT/TDT). But you are doing so by asking whether the normative theory is satisfactory when used as a descriptive theory. And you are asking that it function descriptively in a fictitious universe in which shoplifters are rarely caught and mildly punished.

16

Discussion for Eliezer Yudkowsky's paper: Timeless Decision Theory

16

16

16

Discussion for Eliezer Yudkowsky's paper: Timeless Decision Theory

16

16