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.
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.