= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Should we enable public binding precommitments? - 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 (19)
How do you distinguish precommittments from simple contracts?
If you are standing in the market selling apples for dollar a pound, have you precommitted to anything?
Generally speaking, precommittments are expensive because you pay with optionality, the ability to make a choice later. There must be a good reason to precommit, something other than "wouldn't it be generally useful".
Precommitments are more general, since they don't require more than one party, but they are very similar.
Currently, contracts are usually enforced by the government, and there are limits to what can be included in a contract, and the legality of the contract can be disputed.
Binding precommitments would be useful for enabling cooperation in inefficient games: http://lesswrong.com/lw/nv3/inefficient_games/