I don’t see how those are Newcomb situations at all. When I try to come up with an example of a Newcomb-like sports situation (eg football since plays are preselected and revealed simultaneously more or less) I get something like the following:
you have two plays A and B (one-box, two-box)
the opposing coach has two plays X and Y
if the opposing coach predicts you will select A they will select X and if they predict you will select B they will select Y.
A vs X results in a moderate gain for you.
A vs Y results in no gain for you.
B vs Y results in a small gain for you.
B vs X results in a large gain for you.
You both know all this.
The problem lies in the 3rd assumption. Why would the opposing coach ever select play X? Symmetrically, if Omega was actually competing against you and trying to minimize your winnings why would it ever put a million dollars in the second box.
Newcomb’s works, in part, due to Omega’s willingness to select a dominated strategy in order to mess with you. What real-life situation involves an opponent like that?
Newcomb’s problem does happen (and has happened) in real life. Also, omega is trying to maximize his stake rather than minimize yours; he made a bet with alpha with much higher stakes than the $1,000,000. Not to mention newcomb’s problem bears some vital semblance to the prisoners’ dilemma, which occurs in real life.
Sure, I didn’t mean to imply that there were literally zero situations that could be described as Newcomb-like (though I think that particular example is a questionable fit). I just think they are extremely rare (particularly in a competitive context such as poker or sports).
edit: That example is more like a prisoner’s dilemma where Kate gets to decide her move after seeing Joe’s. Agree that Newcomb’s definitely has similarities with the relatively common PD.
Oddly enough, that problem is also solved better by a time-variable agent: Joe proposes sincerely, being an agent who would never back out of a commitment of this level. If his marriage turns out poorly enough, Joe, while remaining the same agent that used to wouldn’t back out, backs out.
And the prisoners’ dilemma as it is written cannot occur in real life, because it requires no further interaction between the agents.
I don’t see how those are Newcomb situations at all. When I try to come up with an example of a Newcomb-like sports situation (eg football since plays are preselected and revealed simultaneously more or less) I get something like the following:
you have two plays A and B (one-box, two-box)
the opposing coach has two plays X and Y
if the opposing coach predicts you will select A they will select X and if they predict you will select B they will select Y.
A vs X results in a moderate gain for you. A vs Y results in no gain for you. B vs Y results in a small gain for you. B vs X results in a large gain for you.
You both know all this.
The problem lies in the 3rd assumption. Why would the opposing coach ever select play X? Symmetrically, if Omega was actually competing against you and trying to minimize your winnings why would it ever put a million dollars in the second box.
Newcomb’s works, in part, due to Omega’s willingness to select a dominated strategy in order to mess with you. What real-life situation involves an opponent like that?
Newcomb’s problem does happen (and has happened) in real life. Also, omega is trying to maximize his stake rather than minimize yours; he made a bet with alpha with much higher stakes than the $1,000,000. Not to mention newcomb’s problem bears some vital semblance to the prisoners’ dilemma, which occurs in real life.
And Parfit’s Hitchhiker scenarios, and blackmail attempts, not to mention voting.
Sure, I didn’t mean to imply that there were literally zero situations that could be described as Newcomb-like (though I think that particular example is a questionable fit). I just think they are extremely rare (particularly in a competitive context such as poker or sports).
edit: That example is more like a prisoner’s dilemma where Kate gets to decide her move after seeing Joe’s. Agree that Newcomb’s definitely has similarities with the relatively common PD.
Oddly enough, that problem is also solved better by a time-variable agent: Joe proposes sincerely, being an agent who would never back out of a commitment of this level. If his marriage turns out poorly enough, Joe, while remaining the same agent that used to wouldn’t back out, backs out.
And the prisoners’ dilemma as it is written cannot occur in real life, because it requires no further interaction between the agents.