I think this type of reflection is the decision theory equivalent of calculating the perfect launch sequence in Kerbal Space Program. If you sink enough time into it, you can probably achieve it, but by then you’ll have loooong passed the point of diminishing returns, and very little of what you’ve learned will be applicable in the real world, because you’ve spent all your energy optimizing strategies that immediately fall apart the second any uncertainty or fuzziness is introduced into your simulation.
Has Functional Decisions Theory ever been tested “on the field”, so to speak? Is there any empirical evidence that it actually helps people / organizations / AIs make better decisions in the real world?
Look, I’m going to be an asshole, but no, that doesn’t count.
There are millions of stories of the type “I lost lots of weight thanks to X even though nothing else had worked” around. They are not strong evidence that X works.
FWIW, in your comment above you had asked for “any empirical evidence”.
I agree that Zvi’s story is not “strong evidence”, but I don’t think that means it “doesn’t count” — a data point is a data point, even if inconclusive on its own.
(And I think it’s inappropriate to tell someone that a data point “doesn’t count” in response to a request for “any empirical evidence”. In other words, I agree with your assessment that you were being a little bit of an asshole in that response ;-) )
When deciding to skip the gym, FDT would tell you your decision procedure now is similar to the one you use each day when deciding to go to the gym. So you’d best go now, because then you always go. (This is a bit simplified, as the situation may not be the same each day, but the point stands.)
Furthermore, FDT denies voting is irrational when there are enough voters who are enough similarly-minded to you (who vote when you vote, since their decision procedure is the same). This is a pretty cool result.
Also, it may be worth noting that many real-life scenarios are Newcomblike: e.g. people predict what you will do using your microexpressions. Newcomb’s Problem is just a special case.
Agreed.
I think this type of reflection is the decision theory equivalent of calculating the perfect launch sequence in Kerbal Space Program. If you sink enough time into it, you can probably achieve it, but by then you’ll have loooong passed the point of diminishing returns, and very little of what you’ve learned will be applicable in the real world, because you’ve spent all your energy optimizing strategies that immediately fall apart the second any uncertainty or fuzziness is introduced into your simulation.
How so? Functional Decision Theory handles these situations beautifully, with or without uncertainty.
Has Functional Decisions Theory ever been tested “on the field”, so to speak? Is there any empirical evidence that it actually helps people / organizations / AIs make better decisions in the real world?
Zvi would tell you that yes it has: How I Lost 100 Pounds Using TDT.
Look, I’m going to be an asshole, but no, that doesn’t count.
There are millions of stories of the type “I lost lots of weight thanks to X even though nothing else had worked” around. They are not strong evidence that X works.
FWIW, in your comment above you had asked for “any empirical evidence”.
I agree that Zvi’s story is not “strong evidence”, but I don’t think that means it “doesn’t count” — a data point is a data point, even if inconclusive on its own.
(And I think it’s inappropriate to tell someone that a data point “doesn’t count” in response to a request for “any empirical evidence”. In other words, I agree with your assessment that you were being a little bit of an asshole in that response ;-) )
Alright, sorry. I should have asked “is there any non-weak empirical evidence that...”. Sorry if I was condescending.
When deciding to skip the gym, FDT would tell you your decision procedure now is similar to the one you use each day when deciding to go to the gym. So you’d best go now, because then you always go. (This is a bit simplified, as the situation may not be the same each day, but the point stands.)
Furthermore, FDT denies voting is irrational when there are enough voters who are enough similarly-minded to you (who vote when you vote, since their decision procedure is the same). This is a pretty cool result.
Also, it may be worth noting that many real-life scenarios are Newcomblike: e.g. people predict what you will do using your microexpressions. Newcomb’s Problem is just a special case.