= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Petter comments on Acausal trade barriers - 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 (21)
So, first you have the utility functions that pay both agents 10 if they cooperate and 1 if they don’t.
Then you change the utility functions to pay the agents 0 if they cooperate and 1 if they don’t. Naturally they will then stop cooperating.
I don’t get it. If you are the one specifying the utility functions, then obviously you can make them cooperate or defect, right?
The change in utility function isn't removing 10 by hand; it's by removing any utility they gain from acausal trade (whatever it is) while preserving utility gained through direct actions. Thus incentivising them to only focus on direct actions (roughly).
Then the entire result of the modification is tautologically true, right?
All of maths is tautologically true, so I'm not sure what you're arguing.