Right, I knew that many people had since moved on to UDT due to limitations of UDASSA for decision-making. What I meant was that UDASSA seems to be satisfactory at resolving the typical questions about anthropic probabilities, setting aside decision theory/noncomputability issues.
I agree it would be nice to have all this information in an readily-accessible place. Maybe the posts setting out the ideas and later counter-arguments could be put in a curated sequence.
I actually knew about UDT. Enough to understand how it wins in Transparent Newcomb, but not enough to understand that it extends to anthropic problems.
Right, I knew that many people had since moved on to UDT due to limitations of UDASSA for decision-making. What I meant was that UDASSA seems to be satisfactory at resolving the typical questions about anthropic probabilities, setting aside decision theory/noncomputability issues.
I agree it would be nice to have all this information in an readily-accessible place. Maybe the posts setting out the ideas and later counter-arguments could be put in a curated sequence.
I actually knew about UDT. Enough to understand how it wins in Transparent Newcomb, but not enough to understand that it extends to anthropic problems.