shminux comments on Causal decision theory is unsatisfactory - LessWrong

20 Post author: So8res 13 September 2014 05:05PM

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

Comments (158)

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

Comment author: shminux 13 September 2014 09:55:43PM 3 points [-]

If I'm the type of person who will always cooperate, what would happen if I went off-the-equilibrium-path and did defect even if my defecting is a zero probability event?

I'm trying to understand the difference between your statement and "1 is not equal 2, but what if it were?" and failing.

Comment author: solipsist 13 September 2014 11:45:03PM *  1 point [-]

See trembling hand equilibrium.

A trembling hand perfect equilibrium is an equilibrium that takes the possibility of off-the-equilibrium play into account by assuming that the players, through a "slip of the hand" or tremble, may choose unintended strategies, albeit with negligible probability.

First we define a perturbed game. A perturbed game is a copy of a base game, with the restriction that only totally mixed strategies are allowed to be played. A totally mixed strategy is a mixed strategy where every pure strategy is played with non-zero probability. This is the "trembling hands" of the players; they sometimes play a different strategy than the one they intended to play. Then we define a strategy set S (in a base game) as being trembling hand perfect if there is a sequence of perturbed games that converge to the base game in which there is a series of Nash equilibria that converge to S.

Comment author: shminux 14 September 2014 12:05:41AM 1 point [-]

Right, as I mentioned in my other reply, CDT is discontinuous at p=0. Presumably a better decision theory would not have such a discontinuity.

Comment author: Jiro 13 September 2014 11:13:00PM 1 point [-]

One possible interpretation of "if I always cooperate, what would happen if I don't" is "what is the limit, as X approaches 1, of 'if I cooperate with probability X, what would happen if I don't'?"

This doesn't reasonably map onto the 1=2 example.

Comment author: shminux 13 September 2014 11:49:26PM 1 point [-]

Right. There seems to be a discontinuity, as the limit of CDT (p->0) is not CDT (p=0). I wonder if this is the root of the issue.

Comment author: James_Miller 13 September 2014 10:31:18PM *  1 point [-]

"1 is not equal 2, but what if it were?" = what if I could travel faster than the speed of light.

Off the equilibrium path = what if I were to burn a dollar.

Or things I can't do vs things I don't want to do.

Comment author: shminux 13 September 2014 11:34:27PM 1 point [-]

Or things I can't do vs things I don't want to do.

In my mind "I'm the type of person who will always cooperate" means that there is no difference between the two in this case. Maybe you use a different definition of "always"?

Comment author: James_Miller 14 September 2014 12:58:28AM *  1 point [-]

I always cooperate because doing so maximizes my utility since it is better than all the alternatives. I always go slower than the speed of light because I have no alternatives.