Re: symmetry. I think you interpreted right. (Upvoted for symmetry comment.) Part of my original point was trying to say something like “it’s unnatural to have aliens making these sorts of threats without engaging in an acausal relationship with the UDTAI”, but yeah also I was assuming the threat-ignorer would “win” the acausal conflict, which doesn’t seem necessarily right. If the aliens are engaging that way, then yeah, I don’t know how to make threats vs. ignoring threats be asymmetric in a principled way.
I mean, the intuition is that there’s a “default” where the agents “don’t interact at all”, and deviations from the default can be trades if there’s upside chances over the default and threats if there’s downside chances. And to “escalate” from the “default” with a “threat” makes you the “aggressor”, and for some reason “aggressors” have the worse position for acausal conflict, maybe? IDK.
Well, I can’t say I have that intuition, but it is a possibility.
It’s a nice idea: a world without extortion sounds good. But remember that, though we want this, we should be careful to avoid wishful thinking swaying us.
In actual causal conflicts among humans, the aggressors don’t seem to be in a worse position. Things might be different from acausal UDT trades, but I’m not sure why it would be.
Re: symmetry. I think you interpreted right. (Upvoted for symmetry comment.) Part of my original point was trying to say something like “it’s unnatural to have aliens making these sorts of threats without engaging in an acausal relationship with the UDTAI”, but yeah also I was assuming the threat-ignorer would “win” the acausal conflict, which doesn’t seem necessarily right. If the aliens are engaging that way, then yeah, I don’t know how to make threats vs. ignoring threats be asymmetric in a principled way.
I mean, the intuition is that there’s a “default” where the agents “don’t interact at all”, and deviations from the default can be trades if there’s upside chances over the default and threats if there’s downside chances. And to “escalate” from the “default” with a “threat” makes you the “aggressor”, and for some reason “aggressors” have the worse position for acausal conflict, maybe? IDK.
Well, I can’t say I have that intuition, but it is a possibility.
It’s a nice idea: a world without extortion sounds good. But remember that, though we want this, we should be careful to avoid wishful thinking swaying us.
In actual causal conflicts among humans, the aggressors don’t seem to be in a worse position. Things might be different from acausal UDT trades, but I’m not sure why it would be.