MugaSofer comments on Decision Theory FAQ - Less Wrong

52 Post author: lukeprog 28 February 2013 02:15PM

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

Comments (467)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 05 March 2013 07:34:25AM 2 points [-]

Presentation of Newcomb's problem in section 11.1.1. seems faulty. What if the human flips a coin to determine whether to one-box or two-box? (or any suitable source of entropy that is beyond the predictive powers of the super-intelligence.) What happens then?

If the FAQ left this out then it is indeed faulty. It should either specify that if Omega predicts the human will use that kind of entropy then it gets a "Fuck you" (gets nothing in the big box, or worse) or, at best, that Omega awards that kind of randomization with a proportional payoff (ie. If behavior is determined by a fair coin then the big box contains half the money.)

This is a fairly typical (even "Frequent") question so needs to be included in the problem specification. But it can just be considered a minor technical detail.

Comment author: MugaSofer 06 March 2013 09:59:37AM -2 points [-]

It should either specify that if Omega predicts the human will use that kind of entropy then it gets a "Fuck you" (gets nothing in the big box, or worse) or, at best, that Omega awards that kind of randomization with a proportional payoff (ie. If behavior is determined by a fair coin then the big box contains half the money.)

Or that Omega is smart enough to predict any randomizer you have available.

Comment author: linas 09 March 2013 05:34:18AM 2 points [-]

The FAQ states that omega has/is a computer the size of the moon -- that's huge but finite. I believe its possible, with today's technology, to create a randomizer that an omega of this size cannot predict. However smart omega is, one can always create a randomizer that omega cannot break.

Comment author: MugaSofer 21 March 2013 04:40:47PM -2 points [-]

True, but just because such a randomizer is theoretically possible doesn't mean you have one to hand.