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.

gjm comments on [LINK] The P + epsilon Attack (Precommitment in cryptoeconomics) - Less Wrong Discussion

18 Post author: DanielVarga 29 January 2015 02:02AM

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

Comments (22)

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

Comment author: gjm 06 November 2015 05:51:53PM 2 points [-]

They would become non-naive by being harmed (by losing a pile of money). Of course that's a lesser harm than being killed, and indeed "kill the non-resistant ones" is different from "harm the non-resistant ones until they become resistant", so I probably shouldn't have included the diseases-in-the-water example because it uses both effects. It's the latter that I had in mind as common to the examples I listed (as well as, of course, Clarity's original proposal).

Comment author: Jiro 06 November 2015 06:55:05PM 1 point [-]

Unless they're 12 years old, losing a couple of dollars is not really all that damaging.

Comment author: gjm 06 November 2015 08:45:16PM 1 point [-]

I bet the actual gain in wisdom, relative to just telling them "don't do that", is in proportion to the damage.