I’m definitely satisfied with this kind of content.
The names suggest you’re classifying decision procedures by what kind of thoughts they have in special cases. But “sneakily” the point is this is relevant because these are the kinds of thoughts they have all the time.
I think the next place to go is to put this in the context of methods of choosing decision theories—the big ones being reflective modification and evolutionary/population level change. Pretty generally it seems like the trivial perspective is unstable is under these, but there are some circumstances where it’s not.
“I think the next place to go is to put this in the context of methods of choosing decision theories—the big ones being reflective modification and evolutionary/population level change. Pretty generally it seems like the trivial perspective is unstable is under these, but there are some circumstances where it’s not.”—sorry, I’m not following what you’re saying here
Reflective modification flow: Suppose we have an EDT agent that can take an action to modify its decision theory. It will try to choose based on the average outcome conditioned on taking the different decision. In some circumstances, EDT agents are doing well so it will expect to do well by not changing; in other circumstances, maybe it expects to do better conditional on self-modifying to use the Counterfactual Perspective more.
Evolutionary flow: If you put a mixture of EDT and FDT agents in an evolutionary competition where they’re playing some iterated game and high scorers get to reproduce, what does the population look like at large times, for different games and starting populations?
I’m definitely satisfied with this kind of content.
The names suggest you’re classifying decision procedures by what kind of thoughts they have in special cases. But “sneakily” the point is this is relevant because these are the kinds of thoughts they have all the time.
I think the next place to go is to put this in the context of methods of choosing decision theories—the big ones being reflective modification and evolutionary/population level change. Pretty generally it seems like the trivial perspective is unstable is under these, but there are some circumstances where it’s not.
“I think the next place to go is to put this in the context of methods of choosing decision theories—the big ones being reflective modification and evolutionary/population level change. Pretty generally it seems like the trivial perspective is unstable is under these, but there are some circumstances where it’s not.”—sorry, I’m not following what you’re saying here
Reflective modification flow: Suppose we have an EDT agent that can take an action to modify its decision theory. It will try to choose based on the average outcome conditioned on taking the different decision. In some circumstances, EDT agents are doing well so it will expect to do well by not changing; in other circumstances, maybe it expects to do better conditional on self-modifying to use the Counterfactual Perspective more.
Evolutionary flow: If you put a mixture of EDT and FDT agents in an evolutionary competition where they’re playing some iterated game and high scorers get to reproduce, what does the population look like at large times, for different games and starting populations?