= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ArisKatsaris comments on Why do theists, undergrads, and Less Wrongers favor one-boxing on Newcomb? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (299)
I think an easy way to judge between fair and unfair problems is whether you need to label the decision theory. Without a little label saying "TDT" or "CDT", Omega can still punish two-boxers based on the outcome (factual or counterfactual) of their decision theory, regardless of what decision theory they used.
How do you penalize TDT, without actually having to say "I'll penalize TDT", based solely on the expected results of the decision theory?
You penalise based on the counterfactual outcome: if they were in Newcomb's problem, this person would choose one box.
Typically by withholding information about the actual payoffs that will be experienced. eg. Tell the agents they are playing Newcomb's problem but don't mention that all millionaires are going to be murdered...