TDT says “I shouldn’t eat donuts” and does not get fat.
The deontological agent might say that. The TDT agent just decides “I will not eat this particular donut now” and it so happens that it would also to make decisions not to eat other donuts in similar circumstances.
The use of the term TDT or “timeless” is something that gets massively inflated to mean anything noble sounding. All because there is one class of contrived circumstance in which the difference between CDT and TDT is that TDT will cooperate.
It might not be rigorous, but it’s still a good analogy IMO. Akrasia can be seen as you and your future self playing a non-zero-sum game, which in some cases has PD-like payoffs.
The TDT agent just decides “I will not eat this particular donut now” and it so happens that it would also to make decisions not to eat other donuts in similar circumstances.
right. I was being a bit messy with describing the TDT thought process. The point is that TDT considers all donut-decisions as a single decision.
The deontological agent might say that. The TDT agent just decides “I will not eat this particular donut now” and it so happens that it would also to make decisions not to eat other donuts in similar circumstances.
The use of the term TDT or “timeless” is something that gets massively inflated to mean anything noble sounding. All because there is one class of contrived circumstance in which the difference between CDT and TDT is that TDT will cooperate.
It might not be rigorous, but it’s still a good analogy IMO. Akrasia can be seen as you and your future self playing a non-zero-sum game, which in some cases has PD-like payoffs.
right. I was being a bit messy with describing the TDT thought process. The point is that TDT considers all donut-decisions as a single decision.