= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Sly comments on Why one-box? - 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 (95)
Here is another way to think about this problem.
Imagine if instead of Omega you were on a futuristic game show. As you go onto the show, you enter a future-science brain scanner that scans your brain. After scanning, the game show hosts secretly put the money into the various boxes behind stage.
You now get up on stage and choose whether to one or two box.
Keep in mind that before you got up on the show, 100 other contestants played the game that day. All of the two-boxers ended up with less money than the one-boxers. As an avid watcher of the show, you clearly remember that in every previous broadcast (one a day for ten years) the one-boxers did better than the two-boxers.
Can you honestly tell me that the superior move here is two-boxing? Where does the evidence point? If one strategy clearly and consistently produces inferior results compared to another strategy, that should be all we need to discard it as inferior.
I disagree. Just because Rock lost every time it was played doesn't mean that it's inferior to Paper or Scissors, to use a trivial example.
I disagree.
If rock always lost when people used it, that would be evidence against using rock.
Just like if you flip a coin 1000000 times and keep getting heads that is evidence of a coin that won't be coming up tails anytime soon.
Playing your double: Evidence that your opponent will not use rock is evidence that you should not use paper. If you don't use rock, and don't use paper, then you must use scissors and tie with your opponent who followed the same reasoning.
Updating on evidence that rock doesn't win when it is used means rock wins.
EDIT: consider what you would believe if you tried to call a coin a large number of times and were always right. Then consider what you would believe if you were always wrong.
"Rock lost every time it was played "
"rock doesn't win when it is used means rock wins."
One of these things is not like the other.
Those aren't both things that I said.
For rock to lose consistently means that somebody isn't updating properly, or is using a failing strategy, or a winning strategy.
For example, if I tell my opponent "I'm going to play only paper", and I do, rock will always lose when played. That strategy can still win over several moves, if I am not transparent; all I have to do is correctly predict that my opponent will predict that the current round is the one in which I change my strategy.
If they believe (through expressed preferences, assuming that they independently try to win each round) that rock will lose against me, rock will win against them.