The decrease in sense-of-doom does seem like evidence for this. However:

Whatever my one vulnerability is, I will fake a different one. For example, ordering all mirrors removed from the palace, screaming and flinching whenever someone accidentally holds up a mirror, etc. In the climax when the hero whips out a mirror and thrusts it at my face, my reaction will be "Hmm...I think I need a shave."

I wondered about why he took out the gem and put it far away from the ring. But I'd be surprised if Harry were good enough at occlumency to fool Dumbledore. Wondering how he answered those questions.

Bayesian model averaging struggles in practice because it accounts for uncertainty about which model is correct but still operates under the assumption that only one of them is.

Wait, what? That sounds significant. What does more than one model being correct mean?

Speculation before I read the paper:

I guess that's like modelling a process as the superposition of sub-processes? That would give the model more degrees of freedom with which to fit the data. Would we expect that to do strictly better than the mutual exclusion assumption, or does it require more data to overcome the degrees of freedom?

• If a single theory is correct, the mutex assumption will update toward it faster by giving it a higher prior, and the probability-distribution-over-averages would get there slower, but still assigns a substantial prior to theories close to the true one.

• On the other hand, if a combination is a better model, either because the true process is a superposition, or we are modelling something outside of our model-space, then a combination will be better able to express it. So mutex assumption will be forced to put all weight on a bad nearby theory, effectively updating in the wrong direction, whereas the combination won't lose as much because it contains more accurate models. I wonder if averaging combination will beat mutex assumption at every step?

Also interesting to note that the mutex assumption is a subset of the model space of the combination assumption, so if you are unsure which is correct, you can just add more weight to the mutex models in the combination prior and use that.

Now I'll read the paper. Let's see how I did.

no modal agent can get both FairBot and UnfairBot to cooperate with it.

TrollDetector is not a modal agent.

I'd have to check the bit about Harry's invisibility cloak not working against dementors--I don't recall that from canon but if so that is indeed a change. Do you have a specific cite in canon where the invisibility cloak does not work against dementors?

Patronus 2.0 is simply a new spell, not a change to an old one. I don't recall the fundamental mechanism for the Patronus 1.0 charm has changed, but if you have cites from canon and HPMoR to back up this claim, it could prove your point.

The magical interactions between Harry and Voldemort are different, I suspect, because HPMoR Voldemort did something different to Harry than canon Voldemort.

The elder wand is an extension of canon, not a change. I don't think there's anything in canon that contradicts what HPMoR says about it. I read the blood sacrifices as being an additional source of Grindelwald's power, not something required to power the elder wand. I.e. he had the elder wand and the blood sacrifices. And if I'm wrong about that, I'm still not sure it would contradict canon.

Now that the contest is over, I will observe that contrary to your first claim...

MimicBots fit all of these parameters. They make it clear that their opponent is choosing between (C, C) and (D, D). Against a MimicBot, (C, D) is not an option.

...it's actually rather nontrivial to prove that your "MimicBot" does the same thing as you, since it doesn't run your program against itself, it runs your program against a different program. For example, PrudentBot defects against any of your MimicBots, since it can prove that "JusticeBot defects against me, since I defect against CooperateBot" therefore "JusticeBot+1 defects against me, since I defect against Justicebot", etc etc. In that sense, your mimicbot is not really a mimicbot at all. You could call it "simply a higher-order justicebot".

In contrast, with a mimicbot such as solipsist's one can just replace an instance of opponent(me) with 'C and see that this massively increases the chances of his bot cooperating, comparing to replacing the same thing with 'D, hence you should cooperate.

Eliezer has added details of how magic works, but I don't think he's intentionally changed anything from canon.

Here is another obstacle to an optimality result: define UnfairBot as the agent which cooperate with X if and only if PA prove that X defect against UnfairBot, then no modal agent can get both FairBot and UnfairBot to cooperate with it.

Oh, really? ;)

string calculate_the_conclusion(string the_premises[])
{
return "The conclusion. Q.E.D.";
}

This function takes the premises as a parameter, and returns the conclusion. Criterion satisfied?

No, I'm not saying anything at all about temperature or the model; I was talking about the social effects, eg 'positive effect on society'.

Positive and negative in this day and age is dominated by public opinion and is very different than what it was back then. His view back then could have been as simple as "fewer people will freeze to death and there will be more arable land and better crops". Ours view today marginalizes those effects and seems almost entirely based on the idea that change of any sort is negative.