“Maybe people will understand my point better if I CRANK MY RHETORIC UP TO 11 AND UNCOIL THE FIREHOSE AND HALHLTRRLGEBFBLE”
Not necessarily even wrong. The higher the stakes, the more people will care about getting a winning outcome instead of being reasonable. It’s a legit way to cut through the crap to real instrumental rationality. Eliezer uses it in his TDT paper (page 51):
… imagine a Newcomb’s Problem in which a black hole is hurtling toward
Earth, to wipe out you and everything you love. Box B is either empty or contains
a black hole deflection device. Box A as ever transparently contains $1000. Are
you tempted to do something irrational? Are you tempted to change algorithms
so that you are no longer a causal decision agent, saying, perhaps, that though
you treasure your rationality, you treasure Earth’s life more?
Not necessarily even wrong. The higher the stakes, the more people will care about getting a winning outcome instead of being reasonable. It’s a legit way to cut through the crap to real instrumental rationality. Eliezer uses it in his TDT paper (page 51):