Any function of the internal state can be expressed with a number of entries equal to the number of possible internal states.
You’ve given me something that’s still interesting, which is all the expected utilities.
By what rule does “my” example agent have to listen and respond to such evidence, while “yours” does not? Again, I don’t think your proposed counter example is remotely convincing.
Because one maximizes a utility function, and the other just says “no” all the time.
Why do you think there’s a counter-example? Did you read the referenced Dewey paper about O-Maximisers?
Thank you for linking that again. Hm, I guess I did assume that agents could have different utilities at different timesteps. Just putting “1” for everything resolves how an O-maximizer can refuse the offer to raise its utility. But then, they assume that the tape of a turing machine is infinite, so the cycle above still is a problem.
Any function of the internal state can be expressed with a number of entries equal to the number of possible internal states.
You’ve given me something that’s still interesting, which is all the expected utilities.
Because one maximizes a utility function, and the other just says “no” all the time.
Thank you for linking that again. Hm, I guess I did assume that agents could have different utilities at different timesteps. Just putting “1” for everything resolves how an O-maximizer can refuse the offer to raise its utility. But then, they assume that the tape of a turing machine is infinite, so the cycle above still is a problem.