That is really helpful, thanks. I had been making a mistake, in that I thought that there was an argument from just “the agent thinks it’s possible the agent will run into a money pump” that concluded “the agent should complete that preference in advance”. But I was thinking sloppily and accidentally sometimes equivocating between pref-gaps and indifference. So I don’t think this argument works by itself, but I think it might be made to work with an additional assumption.
One intuition that I find convincing is that if I found myself at outcome A in the single sweetening money pump, I would regret having not made it to A+. This intuition seems to hold even if I imagine A and B to be of incomparable value.
In order to avoid this regret, I would try to become the sort of agent that never found itself in that position. I can see that if I always follow the Caprice rule, then it’s a little weird to regret not getting A+, because that isn’t a counterfactually available option (counterfacting on decision 1). But this feels like I’m being cheated. I think the reason that if feels like I’m being cheated is that I feel like getting to A+ should be a counterfactually available option.
One way to make it a counterfactually available option in the thought experiment is to introduce another choice before choice 1 in the decision tree. The new choice (0), is the choice about whether to maintain the same decision algorithm (call this incomplete), or complete the preferential gap between A and B (call this complete).
I think the choice complete statewise dominates incomplete. This is because the choice incomplete results in a lottery {B: qp, A+: q(1−p), A:(1−q)} for q<1.[1] However, the choice complete results in the lottery {B: p, A+: (1−p), A:0}.
Do you disagree with this? I think this allows us to create a money pump, by charging the agent $ϵ for the option to complete its own preferences.
The statewise pseudodominance relation is cyclic, so the Statewise Pseudodominance Principle would lead to cyclic preferences.
This still seems wrong to me, because I see lotteries as being an object whose purpose is to summarize random variables and outcomes. So it’s weird to compare lotteries that depend on the same random variables (they are correlated), as if they are independent. This seems like a sidetrack though, and it’s plausible to me that I’m just confused about your definitions here.
Letting p be the probability that the agent chooses 2A+ and (1−p) the probability the agent chooses 2B (following your comment above). And q is defined similarly, for choice 1.
I made a mistake again. As described above, complete only pseudodominates incomplete.
But this is easily patched with the trick described in the OP. So we need the choice complete to make two changes to the downstream decisions. First, change decision 1 to always choose up (as before), second, change the distribution of Decision 2 to {1−q(1−p), q(1−p)}, because this keeps the probability of B constant. Fixed diagram:
Now the lottery for complete is {B: q(1−p), A+: 1−q(1−p), A:0}, and the lottery for incomplete is {B: q(1−p), A+: pq, A:(1−q)}. So overall, there is a pure shift of probability from A to A+. [Edit 23/7: hilariously, I still had the probabilities wrong, so fixed them, again].
That is really helpful, thanks. I had been making a mistake, in that I thought that there was an argument from just “the agent thinks it’s possible the agent will run into a money pump” that concluded “the agent should complete that preference in advance”. But I was thinking sloppily and accidentally sometimes equivocating between pref-gaps and indifference. So I don’t think this argument works by itself, but I think it might be made to work with an additional assumption.
One intuition that I find convincing is that if I found myself at outcome A in the single sweetening money pump, I would regret having not made it to A+. This intuition seems to hold even if I imagine A and B to be of incomparable value.
In order to avoid this regret, I would try to become the sort of agent that never found itself in that position. I can see that if I always follow the Caprice rule, then it’s a little weird to regret not getting A+, because that isn’t a counterfactually available option (counterfacting on decision 1). But this feels like I’m being cheated. I think the reason that if feels like I’m being cheated is that I feel like getting to A+ should be a counterfactually available option.
One way to make it a counterfactually available option in the thought experiment is to introduce another choice before choice 1 in the decision tree. The new choice (0), is the choice about whether to maintain the same decision algorithm (call this incomplete), or complete the preferential gap between A and B (call this complete).
I think the choice complete statewise dominates incomplete. This is because the choice incomplete results in a lottery {B: qp, A+: q(1−p), A:(1−q)} for q<1.[1] However, the choice complete results in the lottery {B: p, A+: (1−p), A:0}.
Do you disagree with this? I think this allows us to create a money pump, by charging the agent $ϵ for the option to complete its own preferences.
This still seems wrong to me, because I see lotteries as being an object whose purpose is to summarize random variables and outcomes. So it’s weird to compare lotteries that depend on the same random variables (they are correlated), as if they are independent. This seems like a sidetrack though, and it’s plausible to me that I’m just confused about your definitions here.
Letting p be the probability that the agent chooses 2A+ and (1−p) the probability the agent chooses 2B (following your comment above). And q is defined similarly, for choice 1.
I made a mistake again. As described above, complete only pseudodominates incomplete.
But this is easily patched with the trick described in the OP. So we need the choice complete to make two changes to the downstream decisions. First, change decision 1 to always choose up (as before), second, change the distribution of Decision 2 to {1−q(1−p), q(1−p)}, because this keeps the probability of B constant. Fixed diagram:
Now the lottery for complete is {B: q(1−p), A+: 1−q(1−p), A:0}, and the lottery for incomplete is {B: q(1−p), A+: pq, A:(1−q)}. So overall, there is a pure shift of probability from A to A+.
[Edit 23/7: hilariously, I still had the probabilities wrong, so fixed them, again].