gwern comments on How to avoid dying in a car crash - Less Wrong

75 Post author: michaelcurzi 17 March 2012 07:44PM

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

Comments (288)

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

Comment author: gwern 18 March 2012 01:03:02AM 5 points [-]

But on the other hand you'd still be less likely to be involved by accidents caused by others -- but such a rule is not Categorical Imperative-izable.

Aren't there stable rules which are perfectly Categorical Imperative-compatible? Thinking in UDT sort of terms, perhaps the rule would be 'flip a coin to decide whether you start driving on the first or second day'. If everyone did that, half the population would drive day 1 and half day 2, which seems superior.

Comment author: [deleted] 18 March 2012 07:33:49AM *  3 points [-]

Huh yeah, it would. I had forgotten that in such cases good strategies can be non-deterministic.

Comment author: gwern 18 March 2012 04:28:56PM 0 points [-]

Well, it's not just in 'such cases' but in tons of games there are mixed strategies and even mixed strategies which are the Nash equilibrium.

Comment author: [deleted] 18 March 2012 05:49:36PM 0 points [-]

Well... by such cases I kind-of meant "several-player games". (Then there is the absent-minded driver problem... maybe if you count the driver's self before and after the first intersection as different players... but then that becomes a variable-number-of-players game. Whatever. I guess I've just internalized way too much.)