wedrifid comments on Decision Theories: A Less Wrong Primer - Less Wrong

69 Post author: orthonormal 13 March 2012 11:31PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (172)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 13 March 2012 08:14:36AM 2 points [-]

It would be a little more helpful, although probably not quite as cool-sounding,

That doesn't seem to make helping you appealing.

if you explained in what way the game is not Newcomb's in the first link,

The agent believes that it is has 50% chance of being in an actual Newcomb's problem and 50% chance of being in a simulation which will be used to present another agent with a Newcomb's problem some time in the future.

and the agent not a CDT in the second.

Orthonormal already explained this in the context.

Comment author: gRR 13 March 2012 08:37:32AM 0 points [-]

That doesn't seem to make helping you appealing.

Yes, I have this problem, working on it. I'm sorry, and thanks for your patience!

The agent believes that it is has 50% chance of being in an actual Newcomb's problem and 50% chance of being in a simulation which will be used to present another agent with a Newcomb's problem some time in the future.

Yes, except for s/another agent/itself/. In what way this is not a correct description of a pure Newcomb's problem from the agent's point of view? This is my original still unanswered question.

Note: in the usual formulations of Newcomb's problem for UDT, the agent knows exactly that - it is called twice, and when it is running it does not know which of the two calls is being evaluated.

Orthonormal already explained this in the context.

I answered his explanation in the context, and he appeared to agree. His other objection seems to be based on a mistaken understanding.

Comment author: orthonormal 13 March 2012 09:43:19PM 0 points [-]

This is worth writing into its own post- a CDT agent with a non-self-centered utility function (like a paperclip maximizer) and a certain model of anthropics (in which, if it knows it's being simulated, it views itself as possibly within the simulation), when faced with a Predictor that predicts by simulating (which is not always the case), one-boxes on Newcomb's Problem.

This is a novel and surprising result in the academic literature on CDT, not the prediction they expected. But it seems to me that if you violate any of the conditions above, one-boxing collapses back into two-boxing; and furthermore, it won't cooperate in the Prisoner's Dilemma against a CDT agent with an orthogonal utility function. That, at least, is inescapable from the independence assumption.