Manfred comments on The Ultimate Newcomb's Problem - Less Wrong

18 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 10 September 2013 02:03AM

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

Comments (112)

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

Comment author: Manfred 15 September 2013 02:33:21AM 0 points [-]

It's transparent Newcomb's problem but of the "perverse" variety where even when you see that the million is missing you're supposed to not take the thousand. The typical (e.g. in Good and Real) version just requires you to one-box when the million is there.

Comment author: wedrifid 15 September 2013 03:55:10AM *  1 point [-]

It's transparent Newcomb's problem but of the "perverse" variety where even when you see that the million is missing you're supposed to not take the thousand. The typical (e.g. in Good and Real) version just requires you to one-box when the million is there.

I do prefer the "perverse" variant. The typical version seems so trivial. I've already got defined-by-the-problem certainty about the payoffs. A few photons in my eyes adds little. To give the 'perverse' variant more emphasis I also like to add a small amount of random noise to Omega's choice so that the "one box when box empty" scenario isn't self-preventing.