Will_Newsome comments on Pascal's Mugging - Penalizing the prior probability? - Less Wrong

8 Post author: XiXiDu 17 May 2011 02:44PM

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

Comments (29)

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

Comment author: Will_Newsome 21 May 2011 11:13:01PM *  1 point [-]

I think I remember some very quiet crossover point between like 2007 and 2008 when Eliezer switched from saying 'the infinite utilities cancel each other out' to 'why do you think a superintelligence would use a policy like your artificially neat approximation where all the probabilities just happen to cancel each other out nicely, instead of, say, actually trying to do the math and ending up with tiny differences that nonetheless swamp the calculation?' with respect to some kind of Pascalian problem or class of Pascalian problems. This was in OB post comment threads. That's kind of like an implicit retraction of endorsement of fuzzy Pascalian 'solutions' (if I'm actually remembering it correctly) but admittedly it's not, like, an actual retraction.

I still think I might be missing some detail or intuition that Eliezer isn't missing that could be charitably extracted from Robin's argument... but yeah, if I had to bet I'd say it was a (hopefully rare) slip of the brain on Eliezer's part, and if so it'd be nice to get a clarifying comment from Eliezer, even if I'm not sure it's at all (socially) reasonable to expect one.

Comment author: wedrifid 22 May 2011 06:43:43AM 1 point [-]

even if I'm not sure it's at all (socially) reasonable to expect one.

There is no social debt to be paid in humble recompense. Rather it would be useful to have some form of signal that Eliezer's current thinking is not broken in areas that are somewhat important.