When you say “precommited”, you mean “effectively signalled precommitment”. When you say “can’t precommit” (that is, can precommit only to certain other things), you mean “there is no way of effectively signalling this precommitment”.
FAWS clearly does not mean that. He means what he says he means and you disagree with him.
Since the game stipulates that one of the two acts before the other editing their source code is a viable option. If you happen to know that the other party is vulnerable to this kind of tactic then this is the right decision to make.
(Or the game might have a notion of rational strategy, and so you won’t need either source code or signalling of precommitment.)
FAWS clearly does not mean that. He means what he says he means and you disagree with him.
I don’t disagree with him, because I don’t see what else it could mean.
Since the game stipulates that one of the two acts before the other editing their source code is a viable option.
See the other reply—the edited code is not an interesting fact. The communicated code must be the original one—if it’s impossible to verify, this just means it can’t be effectively communicated (signalled), which implies that you can’t signal your counterfactual precommitment.
See the other reply—the edited code is not an interesting fact. The communicated code must be the original one
No, it need not be the original code. In fact, if the Baron really wants to he can destroy all copies of the original code. This is a counterfactual actual universe. The agent that is the baron is made up of quarks which can be moved about using the normal laws of physics.
It need not be the original code, but if we are interested in the original code, then we read the communicated data as evidence about the original code—for what it’s worth. It may well be in Baron’s interest to give info about his code—since otherwise, what distinguishes him from a random jumble of wires, in which case the outcome may not be appropriate for his skills.
FAWS clearly does not mean that. He means what he says he means and you disagree with him.
Since the game stipulates that one of the two acts before the other editing their source code is a viable option. If you happen to know that the other party is vulnerable to this kind of tactic then this is the right decision to make.
On this I agree.
I don’t disagree with him, because I don’t see what else it could mean.
See the other reply—the edited code is not an interesting fact. The communicated code must be the original one—if it’s impossible to verify, this just means it can’t be effectively communicated (signalled), which implies that you can’t signal your counterfactual precommitment.
No, it need not be the original code. In fact, if the Baron really wants to he can destroy all copies of the original code. This is a counterfactual actual universe. The agent that is the baron is made up of quarks which can be moved about using the normal laws of physics.
It need not be the original code, but if we are interested in the original code, then we read the communicated data as evidence about the original code—for what it’s worth. It may well be in Baron’s interest to give info about his code—since otherwise, what distinguishes him from a random jumble of wires, in which case the outcome may not be appropriate for his skills.