thomblake comments on Is Omega Impossible? Can we even ask? - Less Wrong

-8 Post author: mwengler 24 October 2012 02:47PM

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

Comments (51)

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

Comment author: thomblake 24 October 2012 03:18:27PM *  9 points [-]

If Omega is only able to predict your answer with 75% accuracy, then the expected payoff for two-boxing is:

.25 * 1001000 + .75 * 1000 = 251000

and the expected payoff for one-boxing is:

.25 * 0 + .75 * 1000000 = 750000.

So even if Omega is just a pretty good predictor, one-boxing is the way to go. (unless you really need a thousand dollars or usual concerns about money vs utility)

Comment author: thomblake 24 October 2012 03:45:53PM 2 points [-]

For the curious, you should be indifferent to one- or two-boxing when Omega predicts your response 50.05% of the time. If Omega is just perceptibly better than chance, one-boxing is still the way to go.

Now I wonder how good humans are at playing Omega.

Comment author: benelliott 24 October 2012 04:01:52PM *  2 points [-]

Better than 50.5% accuracy actually doesn't sound that implausible, but I will note that if Omega is probabilistic then the way in which it is probabilistic affects the answer. E.g., if Omega works by asking people what they will do and then believing them, this may well get better than chance results with humans, at least some of whom are honest. However, the correct response in this version of the problem is to two-box and lie.

Comment author: thomblake 24 October 2012 04:10:03PM 0 points [-]

Better than 50.5% accuracy actually doesn't sound that implausible, but I will note that if Omega is probabilistic then the way in which it is probabilistic affects the answer.

Sure, I was reading the 50.05% in terms of probability, not frequency, though I stated it the other way. If you have information about where his predictions are coming from, that will change your probability for his prediction.

Comment author: benelliott 24 October 2012 04:28:43PM 1 point [-]

Fair point, your're right.

Comment author: KPier 24 October 2012 11:29:48PM 0 points [-]

... and if your utility scales linearly with money up to $1,001,000, right?

Comment author: thomblake 25 October 2012 02:13:14PM 0 points [-]

Yes, that sort of thing was addressed in the parenthetical in the grandparent. It doesn't specifically have to scale linearly.

Comment author: prase 25 October 2012 05:12:10AM 0 points [-]

Or if the payoffs are reduced to fall within the (approximately) linear region.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 October 2012 08:51:48AM 3 points [-]

But if they are too low (say, $1.00 and $0.01) I might do things other than what gets me more money Just For The Hell Of It.

Comment author: faul_sname 25 October 2012 05:31:19PM 4 points [-]

And thus was the first zero-boxer born.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 October 2012 06:10:33PM 2 points [-]

Zero-boxer: "Fuck you, Omega. I won't be your puppet!"

Omega: "Keikaku doori..."