Problems 1 and 2 both look—to me—like fancy versions of the Discrimination problem. edit: I am much less sure of this. That is, Omega changes the world based on whether the agent implements TDT. This bit I am still sure of, but it might be the case that TDT can overcome this anyway.
Discrimination problem: Money Omega puts in room if you’re TDT = $1,000. Money Omega puts in room if you’re not = $1,001,000.
Problem 1: Money Omega puts in room if you’re TDT = $1,000 or $1,001,000. Edit: made a mistake. The error in this problem may be subtler than I first claimed. Money Omega puts in room if you’re not = $1,001,000.
Problem 2: $1,000,000 either way. This problem is different but also uninteresting. Due to Omega caring about TDT again, it is just the smallest interesting number paradox for TDT agents only. Other decision theories get a free ride because you’re just asking them to reason about an algorithm (easy to show it produces a uniform distribution) and then a maths question (which box has the smallest number on it?).
You claim the rewards are
independent of the method that the agent uses to choose
but they’re not. They depend on whether the agent uses TDT to choose or not.
Agree. You use process X to determine the setup and agents instantiating X are going to be constrained. Any decision theory would be at a disadvantage when singled out like this.
I’ve edited the problem statement to clarify Box A slightly. Basically, Omega will put $1001000 in the room ($1000 for box A and $1 million for Box B) regardless of the algorithm run by the actual deciding agent. The contents of the boxes depend only on what the simulated agent decides.
Problems 1 and 2 both look—to me—like fancy versions of the Discrimination problem. edit: I am much less sure of this. That is, Omega changes the world based on whether the agent implements TDT. This bit I am still sure of, but it might be the case that TDT can overcome this anyway.
Discrimination problem: Money Omega puts in room if you’re TDT = $1,000. Money Omega puts in room if you’re not = $1,001,000.
Problem 1: Money Omega puts in room if you’re TDT = $1,000 or $1,001,000. Edit: made a mistake. The error in this problem may be subtler than I first claimed. Money Omega puts in room if you’re not = $1,001,000.
Problem 2: $1,000,000 either way. This problem is different but also uninteresting. Due to Omega caring about TDT again, it is just the smallest interesting number paradox for TDT agents only. Other decision theories get a free ride because you’re just asking them to reason about an algorithm (easy to show it produces a uniform distribution) and then a maths question (which box has the smallest number on it?).
You claim the rewards are
but they’re not. They depend on whether the agent uses TDT to choose or not.
Agree. You use process X to determine the setup and agents instantiating X are going to be constrained. Any decision theory would be at a disadvantage when singled out like this.
I’ve edited the problem statement to clarify Box A slightly. Basically, Omega will put $1001000 in the room ($1000 for box A and $1 million for Box B) regardless of the algorithm run by the actual deciding agent. The contents of the boxes depend only on what the simulated agent decides.
Sorry, shouldn’t it be “$1,000 or $1,001,000”?
Right, but $1,001,000 only in the case where you restrict yourself to picking $1,000,000. I oversimplified and it might not actually be accurate.