= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on Should we discount extraordinary implications? - 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 (107)
In what way? You think that Solomonoff induction would predict enormous torture with a non-negligible propbability if it observed the mugger not being paid? Why do you think that? That conclusion seems extremely unlikely to me - assumung that the Solomonoff induction had had a reasonable amount of previous exposure of the world. It would, like any sensible agent, assume that the mugger was lying.
That's why the original Pascal's mugging post post directed its criticism at "some bounded analogue of Solomonoff induction".
Because Solomonoff induction bases its priors on minimum message length and it's possible to encode enormous numbers like 3^^^3 in a message of length much less then 3^^^3.
Because I understand mathematics. ;)
What Eliezer was referring to is the fact that an unbounded agent would attempt to incorporate all possible versions of Pascal's wager and Pascal's mugging simultaneously and promptly end up with an ∞ − ∞ error.
Sure - but the claim there are large numbers of people waiting to be tortured also decreases in probability with the number of people involved.
I figure that Solomonoff induction would give a (correct) tiny probability for this hypothesis being correct.
Your problem is actually not with Solomonoff induction - despite what you say - I figure. Rather you are complaining about some decision theory application of Solomonoff induction - involving the concept of "utility".
What does this have to do with my point.
It does, just not tiny enough to override the 3^^^3 utility difference.
I don't have a problem with anything, I'm just trying to correct misconceptions about Pascal's mugging.
Well, your claim was that "Solomonoff induction itself can't handle Pascal's mugging" - which appears to be unsubstantiated nonsense. Solomonoff induction will give the correct answer based on Occamian priors and its past experience - which is the best that anyone could reasonably expect from it.