= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
William_Quixote comments on An introduction to Newcomblike problems - 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 (5)
So I upvoted this, but subjectively I feel like we are being strung along. Less wrong readers know the basics of decision theory, know casual decision theory (at least in simplified 101 form), and are familiar with Newcomb problems. The value add from this series is going to be the place where you explain in detail why newcomblike problems are the norm. That's a new and exciting addition.
So on behalf of the site, please give us part three soon
I know this was just a harmless typo, and this is not intended as an attack, but I found the idea of a "casual" decision theory hilarious.
Then I noticed that that actually explains a great deal. Humans really do make decisions in a way that could be called casual, because we have limited time and resources and will therefore often just say 'meh, sounds about right' and go with it instead of calculating the optimal choice. So, in essence 'causal decision theory' + 'human heuristics and biases' = 'casual decision theory'
As a counterpoint, I'm a somewhat new-ish LW reader that found this useful. I've been introduced to CDT in the past, but I'm still at the beginner level, and at this stage I profit from seeing the subject summarized in different ways by different people.
That said, I do look forward especially to the more novel content of part three.
It's important to be painstaking about our decision theory, being casual will leave utility on the table. :)
Consider also that there might be reasons for writing posts here other than creating content for you to consume.