= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on You're in Newcomb's Box - LessWrong
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 (172)
I didn't get it until I read this line:
So the question is: is Prometheus running this simulation? If so, he will create you only if you one-box.
So it's not that you were created by Prometheus, it's that you might currently be being created by Prometheus, in which case you want to get Prometheus to keep on creating you.
Or less specifically; if I enter into a situation which involves an acausal negotiation with my creator, I want to agree with my creator so as to be created. This type of decision is likely to increase my measure.
Due to my current beliefs about metaverses I would still two-box, but I now understand how different metaverse theories would lead me to one-box; because I assign a nontrivial chance that I will later be convinced of other theories, I'm wondering if a mixed strategy would be best... I don't really know.
Lest my words be a source of confusion note that I use 'simulation' as an example or 'proof of concept' for how the superintelligence may be doing the deciding. He may be using some other rule of inference that accurately models my decision making. But that doesn't matter to me.
I agree with you here I believe. I didn't mean to imply that Prometheus was literally running the simulation, just that phrasing it in this way made the whole thing "click" for me.
I think my phrasing is the potential source of confusion.