= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on So You Want to Save the World - 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 (146)
Clearly, if the algorithm concludes that it will certainly not choose the $5, and then does choose the $5, it concluded wrong. But the reasoning seems impeccable, and there don't seem to be any false premises here. It smacks of the unexpected hanging paradox.
Ooh, but wait. Expanding that reasoning a bit, we have...
The assumption "I am an algorithm whose axioms are consistent" is one that we already know leads to a contradiction, by Löb's theorem. If we can avoid the wrath of Löb's theorem, can we also avoid the five-and-ten problem?
(Granted, this probably isn't the best place to say this.)
Very likely yes. Now ask if I know how to avoid the wrath of Löb's theorem.
Do you know how to avoid the wrath of Lob's theorem?
Not yet.
What kind of powers are you hoping for beyond this sort of thing?
For someone making a desperate effort to not be a cult leader, you really do enjoy arbitrarily ordering people around, don't you?
</humour possibly subject to Poe's law>