= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ewbrownv 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)
One box, of course. Trying to outsmart an AI for a piddly little 0.1% increase in payoff is stupid.
Now if the payoff were reversed a player with high risk tolerance might reasonably go for some clever two-box solution... but the odds of success would be quite low, so one-boxing would still be the conservative strategy.