I would one-box if I had the one-boxing gene, and two-box if I had the two-boxing gene. I don't know what decision-making theory I'm using, because the problem statement didn't specify how the gene works.
I don't really see the point of asking people with neither gene what they'd do.
this was an unhelpful comment, removed and replaced by this comment
It's likely to result in shakycam or at least large sudden changes in field of view, which I find disorienting.
From a utilitarian perspective what Stannis did on last night's Game of Thrones was completely justified, correct? Yet Slate is calling him "This Week's Worst Person in Westeros." Please no spoilers from people who have read past this point in the books. It seems like a key theme of Game of Thrones is that you should be a consequentialist utilitarian.
The thousands that would die in a civil war are trivial compared to what the white walkers could do, and Stannis winning the civil war is the best hope at stopping the white walkers.
He seems to think that. I think they have a much better chance of stopping the white walkers if Stannis allies with the Lannisters.
From a utilitarian perspective what Stannis did on last night's Game of Thrones was completely justified, correct? Yet Slate is calling him "This Week's Worst Person in Westeros." Please no spoilers from people who have read past this point in the books. It seems like a key theme of Game of Thrones is that you should be a consequentialist utilitarian.
From a deontological perspective, what he did was terrible. From a utilitarian perspective, what he did was in order to enable a civil war which will kill thousands of people and drag the continent into chaos which it really can't afford right now.
Is there a name for this process? Has anyone recorded it before?
The following proverb comes to mind:
Haste makes waste.
Another proverb: "More haste, less speed"
Something in this post makes Firefox hang on me for several seconds when loading it.
Nitpick: It's unlikely that a British person would refer to bazooka chewing gum.
[No HPMOR Spoliers]
I'm unsure if it's fit for the HPMoR discussion thread for Ch. 119, so I'm posting it here. What's up with all of Eliezer's requests at the end?
If anyone can put me in touch with J. K. Rowling or Daniel Radcliffe, I would appreciate it.
If anyone can put me in touch with John Paulson, I would appreciate it.
If anyone can credibly offer to possible arrange production of a movie containing special effects, or an anime, I may be interested in rewriting an old script of mine.
And I am also interested in trying my hand at angel investing, if any investor wants to ascend me to angel.
Thank you.
I'm in part confused by these requests, so I'm trying to figure out what's going on. Eliezer is probably done writing the story, except for last minute tweaks that mind depend upon, e.g., interacting with the fandom again, like he's done with previous chapters. I remember last year when I visi
There's a fuller explanation in the author's notes
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
This is no different from responding to the original Newcomb's by saying "I would one-box if Omega put the million, and two-box if he didn't."
Both in the original Newcomb's problem and in this one you can use any decision theory you like.
There is a difference - with the gene case, there is a causal pathway via brain chemistry or whatnot from the gene to the decision. In the original Newcomb problem, omega's prediction does not cause the decision.