= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jonii comments on Notes on logical priors from the MIRI workshop - 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 (45)
Try as I might, I cannot find any reference to what's canonical way of building such counterfactual scenarios. Closest I could get was in http://lesswrong.com/lw/179/counterfactual_mugging_and_logical_uncertainty/ , where Vladimir Nesov seems to simply reduce logical uncertainty to ordinary uncertainty, but this does not seem to have anything to do with building formal theories and proving actions or any such thing.
To me, it seems largely arbitrary how agent should do when faced with such a dilemma, all dependent on actually specifying what it means to test a logical counterfactual. If you don't specify what it means, whatever could happen as a result.
I am not sure there is a clean story yet on logical counterfactuals. Speaking for myself only, I am not yet convinced logical counterfactuals are "the right approach."
Hi Ilya,
Me neither. Have you seen my post about common mistakes? To me it seems more productive and more fun to explore the implications of an idea without worrying if it's the right approach.
I like "breadth first search" or more precisely "iterative deepening" better than "depth first search."
(DFS is not guaranteed to find the optimal solution, after all!)