= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
hairyfigment comments on Causal decision theory is unsatisfactory - 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 (158)
No. BOT^CDT = DefectBot. It defects against any opponent. CDT could not cause it to cooperate by changing what it does.
Actually if CDT cooperated against BOT^CDT it would get $3^^^3. You can prove all sorts of wonderful things once you assume a statement that is false.
OK... So UDT^Red and UDT^Blue are two instantiations of UDT that differ only in irrelevant details. In fact the scenario is a mirror matchup, only after instantiation one of the copies was painted red and the other was painted blue. According to what you seem to be saying UDT^Red will reason:
Well I can map different epistemic states to different outputs, I can implement the strategy cooperate if you are painted blue and defect if you are painted red.
Of course UDT^Blue will reason the same way and they will fail to cooperate with each other.
Maybe I've misread you, but this sounds like an assertion that your counterfactual question is the right one by definition, rather than a meaningful objection.
Well, yes. Then again, the game was specified as PD against BOT^CDT not as PD against BOT^{you}. It seems pretty clear that for X not equal to CDT that it is not the case that X could achieve the result CC in this game. Are you saying that it is reasonable to say that CDT could achieve a result that no other strategy could just because it's code happens to appear in the opponent's program?
I think that there is perhaps a distinction to be made between things that happen to be simulating your code and this that are causally simulating your code.