The first thing I did after reading the abstract was search it for “TDT” and “UDT”, found neither, searched for a few related terms that should have turned up if the author were familiar with either of them, and didn’t find any. Then I checked the bibliography (it wasn’t up to date with recent work). Then I skimmed for anything that looked like a computer program (there weren’t any). Then I skimmed a few of the example problems and the discussion at the end. Then I stopped.
This is just another attempt to use English to wrestle with problems that become trivial when you restate them in a programming language. And I think we have more than enough of those already.
This is just another attempt to use English to wrestle with problems that become trivial when you restate them in a programming language. And I think we have more than enough of those already.
Disagree. From my perspective at least the central idea- of treating different decision theories as voting by potential future selves seems to be a novel and interesting idea. Moreover, while they don’t state things in terms of programming languages, they are sufficiently precise with a lot of their discussion that I don’t think they are running into many problems arising from language. Some of their remarks may however be better stated in a more algorithmic approach.
The first thing I did after reading the abstract was search it for “TDT” and “UDT”, found neither, searched for a few related terms that should have turned up if the author were familiar with either of them, and didn’t find any. Then I checked the bibliography (it wasn’t up to date with recent work). Then I skimmed for anything that looked like a computer program (there weren’t any). Then I skimmed a few of the example problems and the discussion at the end. Then I stopped.
This is just another attempt to use English to wrestle with problems that become trivial when you restate them in a programming language. And I think we have more than enough of those already.
Disagree. From my perspective at least the central idea- of treating different decision theories as voting by potential future selves seems to be a novel and interesting idea. Moreover, while they don’t state things in terms of programming languages, they are sufficiently precise with a lot of their discussion that I don’t think they are running into many problems arising from language. Some of their remarks may however be better stated in a more algorithmic approach.