= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
smoofra comments on Formalizing Newcomb's - 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 (111)
I have a very strong feeling that way 3 is not possible. It seems that any scanning/analysis procedure detailed enough to predict your actions constitutes simulating you.
I predict that you will not, in the next 24 hours, choose to commit suicide.
Am I simulating you?
You can always change the problem so that it stops making sense, or that the answer gets reversed. But this is not the point, you should seek to understand what the intent was as clearly as possible.
If an argument attacks your long-held belief, make the argument stronger, help it to get through. If you were right, the argument will fail, but you ought to give it the best chance you can.
Not necessarily. It could be purely empirical in nature. No insight into how the detected signals causally relate to the output is required.
I feel the same, but would have been dishonest to omit it. Even 4 sounds more likely to me than 3.