EHeller comments on Newcomb's Problem and Regret of Rationality - Less Wrong

64 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 31 January 2008 07:36PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (588)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: CCC 22 April 2014 10:16:44AM 0 points [-]

The problem, as stated, as far as I can tell gives Omega three options:

  • Fail to correctly predict what the person will choose
  • Refuse to participate
  • Cheat

It is likely that Omega will try to correctly predict what the person will choose; that is, Omega will strive to ignore the first option. If Omega offers the choice to this hypothetical person in the first place, then Omega is not taking the second option.

That leaves the third option; to cheat. I expect that this is the choice that Omega will be most likely to take; one of the easiest ways to do this is by ignoring the spirit of the constraints and taking the exact literal meaning. (Another way is to creatively misunderstand the spirit of the rules as given).

So I provided some suggestions with regard to how Omega might cheat; such as arranging that the decision is never made.

If you think that's outside the problem, then I'm curious; what do you think Omega would do?

Comment author: EHeller 23 April 2014 05:34:04PM 0 points [-]

If you think that's outside the problem, then I'm curious; what do you think Omega would do?

The point here is that the question is inconsistent. It is impossible for an Omega that can predict with high accuracy to exist, as you've correctly pointed out it leads to a situation where Omega must either fail to participate, refuse to participate or cheat, which are all out of bounds of the problem.

Comment author: CCC 25 April 2014 10:20:19AM 0 points [-]

I don't think it's ever wise to ignore the possibility of a superintelligent AI cheating, in some manner.

If we ignore that possibility, then yes, the question would be inconsistent; which implies that if the situation were to actually appear to happen, then it would be quite likely that either:

  • The situation has been misunderstood; or
  • Someone is cheating

Since it is far easier for Omega, being an insane superintelligence, to cheat than it is for someone to cheat Omega, it seems likeliest that if anyone is cheating, then it is Omega.

After all, Omega had and did not take the option to refuse to participate.