I was modeling what Eliezer wrote in the comment that I was responding to:
“Simulate telling the human that they got the answer wrong. If in this case they get the answer wrong, actually tell them that they get the answer wrong. Otherwise say nothing.”
BTW, if you add a tab in front of each line of your program listing, it will get formatted correctly.
Ah, I see. Then it seems that you are really solving the problem of minimizing the probability that Omega presents this problem in the first place.
What about the scenario, where Omega uses the strategy: Simulate telling the human that they got the answer wrong. Define the resulting answer as wrong, and the other as right.
This is what I modeled.
BTW, if you add a tab in front of each line of your program listing, it will get formatted correctly.
Thanks. Is there an easier way to get a tab into the comment input box than copy paste from an outside editor?
What about the scenario, where Omega uses the strategy: Simulate telling the human that they got the answer wrong. Define the resulting answer as wrong, and the other as right.
Is there an easier way to get a tab into the comment input box than copy paste from an outside editor?
Not that I’m aware of.
Are you guys talking about getting code to indent properly? You can do that by typing four spaces in front of each line. Each quadruple of spaces produces a further indentation.
Are you guys talking about getting code to indent properly? You can do that by typing four spaces in front of each line.
Spaces? Think of the wasted negentropy! I say we make tab the official Less Wrong indention symbol, and kick out anyone who disagrees. Who’s with me? :-)
Hm, I think the difference in our model programs indicates something that I don’t understand about UDT, like a wrong assumption that justified an optimization. But it seems they both produce the same result for P(S(“you’re wrong”)), which is outcome=”die” for all S.
Do you agree that this problem is, and should remain, unsolvable? (I understand “should remain unsolvable” to mean that any supposed solution must represent some sort of confusion about the problem.)
The input to P is supposed to contain the physical randomness in the problem, so P(S(“you’re wrong”)) doesn’t make sense to me. The idea is that both P(“green”) and P(“red”) get run, and we can think of them as different universes in a multiverse. Actually in this case I should have wrote “def P():” since there is no random correct color.
wrong assumption that justified an optimization
I’m not quite sure what you mean here, but in general I suggest just translating the decision problem directly into a world program without trying to optimize it.
Do you agree that this problem is, and should remain, unsolvable? (I understand “should remain unsolvable” to mean that any supposed solution must represent some sort of confusion about the problem.)
No, like I said, it seems pretty straightforward to solve in UDT. It’s just that even in the optimal solution you still die.
The input to P is supposed to contain the physical randomness in the problem, so P(S(“you’re wrong”)) doesn’t make sense to me. The idea is that both P(“green”) and P(“red”) get run, and we can think of them as different universes in a multiverse. Actually in this case I should have wrote “def P():” since there is no random correct color.
Ok, now I understood why you wrote your program the way you did.
It’s just that even in the optimal solution you still die.
By solve, I meant find a way to win. I think that after getting past different word use, we agree on the nature of the problem.
The world program I would use to model this scenario is:
The else branch seems unreachable, given color = S(“your’e wrong) and the usual assumptions about Omega.
I don’t understand what your nested if statements are modeling.
I was modeling what Eliezer wrote in the comment that I was responding to:
BTW, if you add a tab in front of each line of your program listing, it will get formatted correctly.
Ah, I see. Then it seems that you are really solving the problem of minimizing the probability that Omega presents this problem in the first place.
What about the scenario, where Omega uses the strategy: Simulate telling the human that they got the answer wrong. Define the resulting answer as wrong, and the other as right.
This is what I modeled.
Thanks. Is there an easier way to get a tab into the comment input box than copy paste from an outside editor?
In that case it should be modeled like this:
Not that I’m aware of.
Are you guys talking about getting code to indent properly? You can do that by typing four spaces in front of each line. Each quadruple of spaces produces a further indentation.
http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#precode
Spaces? Think of the wasted negentropy! I say we make tab the official Less Wrong indention symbol, and kick out anyone who disagrees. Who’s with me? :-)
Hm, I think the difference in our model programs indicates something that I don’t understand about UDT, like a wrong assumption that justified an optimization. But it seems they both produce the same result for P(S(“you’re wrong”)), which is outcome=”die” for all S.
Do you agree that this problem is, and should remain, unsolvable? (I understand “should remain unsolvable” to mean that any supposed solution must represent some sort of confusion about the problem.)
The input to P is supposed to contain the physical randomness in the problem, so P(S(“you’re wrong”)) doesn’t make sense to me. The idea is that both P(“green”) and P(“red”) get run, and we can think of them as different universes in a multiverse. Actually in this case I should have wrote “def P():” since there is no random correct color.
I’m not quite sure what you mean here, but in general I suggest just translating the decision problem directly into a world program without trying to optimize it.
No, like I said, it seems pretty straightforward to solve in UDT. It’s just that even in the optimal solution you still die.
Ok, now I understood why you wrote your program the way you did.
By solve, I meant find a way to win. I think that after getting past different word use, we agree on the nature of the problem.