You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Manfred comments on Open thread, 21-27 April 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Metus 21 April 2014 10:54AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (346)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Manfred 25 April 2014 05:25:09PM *  2 points [-]

I'm not serious, but I'd say that there's little actual use of TDT because it requires us to solve the difficult problem of finding the right causal and logical structure of the problem - this can be handwaved in by the user, but doing that feels awkward. Folk-UDT ("just execute the best strategy") is sufficient for most purposes, both in application and in e.g. trying to understand logical uncertainty.

On the other hand, using causal structure is what lets us consider hypotheticals properly - so TDT will not have some issues that typical-UDT does with hypotheticals about its own actions. On the mutant third hand, TDT's solution of adding logical nodes to the causal structure might just be a simplification of something deeper, so it's not like we (us non-serious decision-theory dilettantes) should put all our eggs in one basket.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 25 April 2014 07:55:25PM 1 point [-]

What is an example of an issue that UDT has with hypotheticals that TDT does not?

Comment author: Manfred 25 April 2014 08:48:46PM *  1 point [-]

The 5 and 10 problem is basically what happens when your agent asks "what are the logical implications if 5 is chosen?" rather than "If we do causal surgery such that 5 is chosen, what's the utility?"

There are other ways to avoid the 5 and 10 problem, but I think they're less general than using causality.