= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jsalvatier comments on Can anyone explain to me why CDT two-boxes? - 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 (136)
I don't think the way you're phrasing that is very useful. If you write up a CDT algorithm and then put it into a Newcomb's problem simulator, it will do something. It's playing the game; maybe not well, but it's playing.
Perhaps you could say, "'CDT' is poorly named, if you follow actual the actual principles of causality, you'll get an algorithm that gets the right answer" (I've seen people make a claim like that). Or "you can think of CDT reframing the problem as an easier one that it knows how to play, but is substantially different and thus gets the wrong answer". Or something else like that.