= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Manfred comments on Newcomb's problem - one boxer's introspection. - 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 (19)
If the psychologist was predicting you based off of a simple algorithm that only took your test scores as inputs, or something like that, you would be totally right.
But it starts to look a lot like Newcomb's problem if the psychologist is predicting you using an algorithm similar to the one you use to make the decision - in that case you should one-box.
Not necessarily, it's hard to say what you should actually do. Maybe the psychologist is gullible enough and you can succeed in getting both non-empty boxes.
So you put a probability on that and do an expected utility calculation.
(It's hard to say how to put a probability on that.)