you don’t need to know this to probabilistically-help whoever will control the lightcone, right? if you take actions that help them-whoever-they-are, then you’re getting some of that share from them-whoever-they-are. (i think?)
My point is not that you can’t affect the outcome of the future. That may also be impossible, but regardless, any intervention you make will be independent of whether or not the person you’re rewarding gives you a share of the lightcone. You can’t actually tell in advance whether or not that AI/person is going to give you that share, in the sense that would incentivize someone to give it to you after they’ve already seized control.
you don’t think there are humans whom i can expect to reliably reward-me-as-per-LDT after-the-fact? it doesn’t have to be a certainty, i can merely have some confidence that some person will give me that share, and weigh the action based on that confidence.
That might happen, but they wouldn’t be doing it because they’re maximizing their utility via acausal trade, they’d be doing it because they value reciprocity.
why wouldn’t it be because they’re maximizing their utility via acausal trade?
do you also think people who don’t-intrinsically-value-reciprocity are doomed to never get picked up by rational agents in parfit’s hitchhiker? or doomed to two-box in newcomb?
to take an example: i would expect that even if he didn’t value reciprocity at all, yudkowsky would reliably cooperate as the hitchhiker in parfit’s hitchhiker, or one-box in newcomb, or retroactively-give-utility-function-shares-to-people-who-helped-if-he-grabbed-the-lightcone. he seems like the-kind-of-person-who-tries-to-reliably-implement-LDT.
My point is not that you can’t affect the outcome of the future. That may also be impossible, but regardless, any intervention you make will be independent of whether or not the person you’re rewarding gives you a share of the lightcone. You can’t actually tell in advance whether or not that AI/person is going to give you that share, in the sense that would incentivize someone to give it to you after they’ve already seized control.
you don’t think there are humans whom i can expect to reliably reward-me-as-per-LDT after-the-fact? it doesn’t have to be a certainty, i can merely have some confidence that some person will give me that share, and weigh the action based on that confidence.
That might happen, but they wouldn’t be doing it because they’re maximizing their utility via acausal trade, they’d be doing it because they value reciprocity.
why wouldn’t it be because they’re maximizing their utility via acausal trade?
do you also think people who don’t-intrinsically-value-reciprocity are doomed to never get picked up by rational agents in parfit’s hitchhiker? or doomed to two-box in newcomb?
to take an example: i would expect that even if he didn’t value reciprocity at all, yudkowsky would reliably cooperate as the hitchhiker in parfit’s hitchhiker, or one-box in newcomb, or retroactively-give-utility-function-shares-to-people-who-helped-if-he-grabbed-the-lightcone. he seems like the-kind-of-person-who-tries-to-reliably-implement-LDT.