Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.
This grew out of an exchange with Jessica Taylor during MIRI’s recent visit to the FHI. Still getting my feel for the fixed point approach; let me know of any errors.
People at MIRI have recently proved you can use reflective oracles so that agents can use them to reason about other agents (including other agents with oracles) and themselves, and consistently reach Nash equilibriums. But can we do better than that?
To recap, a reflective oracle is a machine O such that:
P(A()=1)>p implies O(A,p)=1
P(A()=0)>1-p implies O(A,p)=0
This works even if A() includes a call to the oracle within its code. Now, all the algorithms used here will be clearly terminating, so we’ll have the other two implications as well (eg (P(A()=0)>p implies O(A,p)=0). And given any δ, we can, with order log(1/δ) questions, establish the probability of A() to within δ. Thus we will write O(A()==a)=p to mean that O(A()==a,(n-1)δ/2)=1 and O(A()==a,(n+1)δ/2)=0, where (n-1)δ/2 < p < (n+1)δ/2.
Note also that O can be used to output a probabilistic output (to within δ), so outputting specific mixed strategies is possible.
View more: Next