= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
roland comments on Probabilities Small Enough To Ignore: An attack on Pascal's Mugging - 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 (176)
If the stated probability is what you really assign then yes, positive expected value.
I see the key flaw in that the more exceptional the promise is, the lower the probability you must assign to it.
Would you give more credibility to someone offering you 10^2 US$ or 10^7 US$?
According to common LessWrong ideas, lowering the probability based on the exceptionality of the promise would mean lowering it based on the Kolomogorov complexity of the promise.
If you do that, you won't lower the probability enough to defeat the mugging.
If you can lower the probability more than that, of course you can defeat the mugging.
If you do that, your decision system just breaks down, since the expectation over arbitrary integers with probabilities computer by Solomonoff induction is undefined. That's the reason why AIXI uses bounded rewards.