= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Larks comments on A sealed prediction - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (43)
It's worth noting, people, that Unnamed joined Less Wrong before Eliezer started writing Methods.
Having said that, it's not clear to me we want to do all this. Sometimes we could be at a game-theoretic advantage by not knowing something. E.g. I don't want to be able to be told that someone's kidnapped my daughter, because then they have no incentive to do so (TDT aside). Maybe Quirrell is actually planning on us being able to verify his honesty.
Unless they just want your daughter, instead of wanting whatever behavior they could use her to coerce you into. So really what you don't want is a way to receive ransom demands.
I've also done this 'reply to someone else's hashed prediction so they can't edit it' thing before. There were some other suggestions of how to verify hashed predictions in that discussion, if our asterisk-free comments seem insufficiently secure for dealing with User!Quirinus_Quirrell.
Right now, we have no grounds for considering being able to confirm a deception in this matter more dangerous than being unable to. If at some point in the future such grounds arise, Unnamed (and everyone else) can delete or edit their comments, thereby eliminating the more dangerous option.