private_messaging comments on Tactics against Pascal's Mugging - Less Wrong

16 Post author: ArisKatsaris 25 April 2013 12:07AM

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

Comments (59)

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

Comment author: private_messaging 25 April 2013 05:38:45AM *  4 points [-]

Well, de facto they always converge, mugging or not, and I'm not going to take as normative a formalism where they do diverge. edit: e.g. instead I can adopt speed prior, it's far less insane than incompetent people make it out to be - code size penalty for optimizing out the unseen is very significant. Or if I don't like speed prior (and other such "solutions"), I can simply be sane and conclude that we don't have a working formalism. Prescriptivism is silly when it is unclear how to decide efficiently under bounded computing power.

Comment author: DanielLC 25 April 2013 06:15:23AM 1 point [-]

I can simply be sane and conclude that we don't have a working formalism.

That's generally what you do when you find a paradox that you can't solve. I'm not suggesting that you actually conclude that you can't make a decision.

Comment author: private_messaging 25 April 2013 06:22:52AM 2 points [-]

Of course. And on the practical level, if I want other agents to provide me with more accurate information (something that has high utility scaled by all potential unlikely scenarios), I must try to make production of falsehoods non-profitable.