= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MoreOn comments on Newcomb's Problem and Regret of Rationality - 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 (588)
Yes, nshepperd, my assumption is that P << 0.5, something in the 0.0001 to 0.01 range.
Besides, arbitrage would still be possible if some people estimated P=0.01 and others P=0.0001, only the solution would be messier than what I'd ever want to do casually. Besides, if I were unconstrained by the bets I could make (I'd tried to work with a cap before), that would make making profits even easier.
I wasn't exactly trying to solve the problem, only to find a "naively rational" workaround (using the same naive rationality that leads prisoners to rat each other out in PD).
When you're saying that this doesn't solve Newcomb's problem, what do you expect the solution to actually entail?
Yes, arbitrage is possible pretty much whenever people's probabilities disagree to any significant degree. Setting P = 0 just lets you take it to absurd levels (eg. put up no stake at all, and it's still a "fair bet").
Maximizing the money found upon opening the box(es) you have selected.
If you like, replace the money with cures for cancer with differing probabilities of working, or machines with differing probabilities of being a halting oracle, or something else you can't get by exploiting other humans.