= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Khoth comments on A solvable Newcomb-like problem - part 1 of 3 - 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 (11)
Omega's best strategy is to put money in both boxes if you one-box with probability >0.5. Omega's expected winnings is positive if you one-box with probability >10/11 (I think), but I don't presume to know enough about superintelligent AI psychology to know whether that's Omega's cutoff for changing strategy from "maximise money" to "screw you", so I'd just one-box.
Alternative solution: Offer Omega $1,100,000,000,000 to put nothing in the boxes.
Love it. But, no, that would be caught by Alpha's monitoring before things came to that point.
I was looking for an elegant way to say "These are the only possible options, ignore any change that there will be any other result (such as $1,000,000 in box B.". I was trying to give a context where the rules made sense. In terms of reputation being exchangeable for money, that represents both Alpha and Omega being immensely embarrassed among the AI society at screwing up the basic physical setup and invalidating their own contest. It is sort of a side issue. :-)