= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CannibalSmith 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)
What does Newcomb's Problem has to do with reality as we know it anyway? I mean, imagine that I've solved it (whatever that means). Where in my everyday life can I apply it?
Parfit's Hitchhiker, colliding futuristic civilizations, AIs with knowledge of each other's source code, whether rationalists can in principle cooperate on the true Prisoner's Dilemma.
Oh, hello.
Purely about precommitment, not prediction. Precommitment has been analyzed to death by Schelling, no paradoxes there.
Pass.
Rice's theorem.
PD doesn't have mystical omniscient entities. If we try to eliminate them from Newcomb's as well, the problem evaporates. So no relation.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does.
Rice's theorem is evidence that Omega is likely to be type 1 or 2 rather than 3, and thus in favor of one-boxing.
This was kinda the point of the post: demonstrate the craziness and irrelevance of the problem. I just got sick of people here citing it as an important example. The easiest way to dismiss a problem like that from our collective mind is to "solve" it.