David_Chapman comments on Probability and radical uncertainty - Less Wrong

11 Post author: David_Chapman 23 November 2013 10:34PM

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

Comments (71)

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

Comment author: David_Chapman 24 November 2013 02:56:17AM 1 point [-]

So, how would you analyze this problem, more specifically? What do you think the optimal strategy is?

Comment author: Manfred 24 November 2013 07:43:34AM 7 points [-]

The problem of what to expect from the black box?

I'd think about it like this: suppose that I hand you a box with a slot in it. What do you expect to happen if you put a quarter into the slot?

To answer this we engage our big amount of human knowledge about boxes and people who hand them to you. It's very likely that nothing at all will happen, but I've also seen plenty of boxes that also emit sound, or gumballs, or temporary tattoos, or sometimes more quarters. But suppose that I have previously handed you a box that emits more quarters sometimes when you put quarters in. Then maybe you raise the probability that it also emits quarters, et cetera.

Now, within this model you have a probability of some payoff, but only if it's one of the reward-emitting boxes, and it also has some probability of emitting sound etc. What you call a "meta-probability" is actually the probability of some sub-model being verified or confirmed. Suppose I put in one quarter in and two quarters come out - now you've drastically cut down the models that can describe the box. This is "updating the meta-probability."

Comment author: Armok_GoB 24 November 2013 04:37:31PM 2 points [-]

It also has elrich markers, and is being used in a decision theory experiment, and given in association with omnius wording. These indicates it does something nasty.

Comment author: Manfred 24 November 2013 06:41:29PM 6 points [-]

I guess it will raise the probability a little bit, but out of all eldritch-marked things I've ever seen, about 100% have been ornamental. We can't over-weight small probabilities just because they're vivid.

Comment author: Armok_GoB 25 November 2013 03:12:28AM 1 point [-]

...

Maybe we're getting different mental images for "eldrich". I assumed things that'd get me banned to even vaguely describe, not tentackles and pentagrams.

Comment author: David_Chapman 24 November 2013 07:01:39PM 1 point [-]

To answer this we engage our big amount of human knowledge about boxes and people who hand them to you.

Of comments so far, this comes closest to the answer I have in mind... for whatever that's worth!