= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Suggestions for naming a class of decision theories - 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 (56)
After googling Reflexive the only problem I have with using "Reflexive decision theories" is that it may prevent someone using Reflexive Decision Theory for an actual instance of a well developed decision theory. The name is perfect. (And the name UDT is just STUPID! It only makes sense by redefining 'update'.)
I hope you don't blame me too much for that, because it was Eliezer who gave it that name, and I was only complicit to the extent that I didn't object.
I think "updateless" was meant to refer to the fact that UDT doesn't do explicit Bayesian updating, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me...
(BTW I remember you once said you also didn't like the language I used to describe UDT, but didn't say why when I asked. I'm still curious about that.)
Not at all, and your work on the theory was excellent. I just hope that by the time the descendent decision theories evolve to a stable state that they have picked up a new moniker. The reflexive term sounds much more significant!
I think I would put less emphasis on subtracting updates and more on just which kind of information should be used. After all, not doing updates isn't the important thing (or a sufficient thing), it is that the right piece of information is used at the end.
I'm afraid I've actually been negligent in my decision theory reading. I've actually forgotten a lot since I originally read your work from - what was it? - two years ago or so. I wouldn't really have high confidence in my words if I tried to really explore the issues in detail these days.
Edit: Also, wedrifid_today considers the wording (and punctuation) used by wedrifid_last_month to be rather more hyperbolic than he would endorse.
It's an important thing, in that we don't know how to do updates without getting misled in some strange situations. UDT uses other sources of information, and shows how that's sufficient in principle, but the current puzzle is how to make use of the information that UDT doesn't use, avoiding UDT's logical cornucopia (so that one has to deal with resulting logical uncertainty, and resolve it to a limited extent based on observations).