= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on The Ultimate Newcomb's Problem - 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 (112)
CDT:
Two box, obviously.
EDT:
Assuming this is your last game, two box. Two boxing is evidence that 1033 is composite, so you'll get more money.
If you will continue playing for a long time, one box. This is evidence that you will go with the "always one box" strategy, which will result in more money. More generally, it is evidence that you will go with a TDT-style strategy more often in the future, and get higher payouts as a result.
TDT:
One box. The always one box strategy has the highest payout.
I'm not sure if I have the right terminology with TDT, but these are the three obvious moves and the reasoning for them.
Ahh, good point. This explains the (likely) motivation for Eliezer to contrive this scenario. It's a case where one boxing is the right choice but even EDT gets it wrong. Usually at least one of CDT or EDT gets it right.
One-box? I would have said two-box, under the bizarre theory that I can thereby cause the number to be composite.
Checks... hmm. Well, that was unlikely.