I downvoted it because there’s obviously a real art of “disabling interfaces from which others may be able to exploit you” and that’s what OP is gesturing at. The answerer is unhelpfully dismissing the question in a way that I think is incorrect.
And I, of course, disagree with that, because I think the adversarial/game-theory framing is deeply unhelpful, because it is both a different problem and a much more trivial boring problem than the real problem; and in fact, is exactly the sort of clever excuse people use to not actually deal with any of the real issues while declaring victory over Pascal’s mugging, and I rephrased it in a way where adversarial dynamics were obviously irrelevant to try to draw out that, if you think it’s just about ‘disabling interfaces others may exploit you with’, you have missed the mark.
The hurricane does not, and cannot, care what cute stories you tell about “I have to precommit to ignore such low absolute-magnitude possibilities for ~game-theoretic raisins~”. Your house is going to be flooded and destroyed, or it won’t be; do you buy the insurance, or not?
You can obviously modify these problems to be borne from some obviously natural feature of the environment, so that it’s unlikely for your map to be the result adversarial opponent looking for holes in your risk assessment algorithm, at which point refusing to buy insurance out of fear of being exploited is stupid.
Alas, OP is talking about a different class of hypotheticals, so he requires a different answer. The correct action in the case quoted by OP and the one he is alluding to is that, given that you’re a human with faulty probabilistic reasoning facilities, you should rationally refuse weird trades where Dark Rationalists are likely to money pump you. As a proof that you are a nonideal agent dutch book arguments are fine, but that’s as far as it goes, and sapient individuals have ways of getting around being a nonideal agent in adversarial environments without losing all their money. I find those means interesting and non-”trivial” even if you don’t, and apparently so does the OP.
No, I explained why it was stupid, it’s right there in the post, and you pretending you don’t see it is getting on my nerves. I said:
so that it’s unlikely for your map to be the result of an adversarial opponent looking for holes in your risk assessment algorithm
In other words, it’s stupid because a naturally produced hurricane or rock falling down a cliff does not has a brain, and is unlikely to be manipulating you into doing something net negative, and so you should just reason naturally. Humans have brains and goals in conflicts with yours, so when humans come up to you after hearing about your decision making algorithm asking to play weird bets, you may rationally ignore those offers on the principle that you don’t want to be tricked somehow.
You know this, I know you know I know you know this, I think you’re just being profoundly silly at this point.
I downvoted it because there’s obviously a real art of “disabling interfaces from which others may be able to exploit you” and that’s what OP is gesturing at. The answerer is unhelpfully dismissing the question in a way that I think is incorrect.
And I, of course, disagree with that, because I think the adversarial/game-theory framing is deeply unhelpful, because it is both a different problem and a much more trivial boring problem than the real problem; and in fact, is exactly the sort of clever excuse people use to not actually deal with any of the real issues while declaring victory over Pascal’s mugging, and I rephrased it in a way where adversarial dynamics were obviously irrelevant to try to draw out that, if you think it’s just about ‘disabling interfaces others may exploit you with’, you have missed the mark.
The hurricane does not, and cannot, care what cute stories you tell about “I have to precommit to ignore such low absolute-magnitude possibilities for ~game-theoretic raisins~”. Your house is going to be flooded and destroyed, or it won’t be; do you buy the insurance, or not?
You can obviously modify these problems to be borne from some obviously natural feature of the environment, so that it’s unlikely for your map to be the result adversarial opponent looking for holes in your risk assessment algorithm, at which point refusing to buy insurance out of fear of being exploited is stupid.
Alas, OP is talking about a different class of hypotheticals, so he requires a different answer. The correct action in the case quoted by OP and the one he is alluding to is that, given that you’re a human with faulty probabilistic reasoning facilities, you should rationally refuse weird trades where Dark Rationalists are likely to money pump you. As a proof that you are a nonideal agent dutch book arguments are fine, but that’s as far as it goes, and sapient individuals have ways of getting around being a nonideal agent in adversarial environments without losing all their money. I find those means interesting and non-”trivial” even if you don’t, and apparently so does the OP.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6XsZi9aFWdds8bWsy/is-there-any-discussion-on-avoiding-being-dutch-booked-or?commentId=h2ggSzhBLdPLKPsyG
No, I explained why it was stupid, it’s right there in the post, and you pretending you don’t see it is getting on my nerves. I said:
In other words, it’s stupid because a naturally produced hurricane or rock falling down a cliff does not has a brain, and is unlikely to be manipulating you into doing something net negative, and so you should just reason naturally. Humans have brains and goals in conflicts with yours, so when humans come up to you after hearing about your decision making algorithm asking to play weird bets, you may rationally ignore those offers on the principle that you don’t want to be tricked somehow.
You know this, I know you know I know you know this, I think you’re just being profoundly silly at this point.