You cited avoiding the “immense potential damage of being known to be Pascal muggable” as a motivating factor for actual humans, suggesting that you were talking about the real world. There might be some damage from being “muggable,” but it’s not clear why being known to be muggable is a disadvantage, given that here in the real world we don’t pay the mugger regardless of our philosophical views.
I agree that you can change the thought experiment to rule out (1). But if you do, it loses all of its intuitive force. Think about it from the perspective of someone in the modified thought experiment:
You are 100% sure there is no other way to get as much utility as the mugger promises at any other time in the future of the universe. But somehow you aren’t so sure about the mugger’s offer. So this is literally the only possible chance in all of history to get an outcome this good, or even anywhere close. Do you pay then?
“Yes” seems like a plausible answer (even before the mugger opens her mouth). The real question is how you came to have such a bizarre state of knowledge about the world, not why you are taking the mugger seriously once you do!
but it’s not clear why being known to be muggable is a disadvantage, given that here in the real world we don’t pay the mugger regardless of our philosophical views.
Being known to be muggable attracts people to give it a try. But if we don’t pay the mugger in reality, then we can’t be known to be muggable, because we aren’t.
You are 100% sure there is no other way to get as much utility as the mugger promises at any other time in the future of the universe.
It doesn’t seem unreasonable to get quasi 100% if the amount the mugger promises is sufficiently high (“all the matter in all the reachable universe dedicated to building a single AI to define the highest number possible—that’s how much utility I promise you”).
You cited avoiding the “immense potential damage of being known to be Pascal muggable” as a motivating factor for actual humans, suggesting that you were talking about the real world. There might be some damage from being “muggable,” but it’s not clear why being known to be muggable is a disadvantage, given that here in the real world we don’t pay the mugger regardless of our philosophical views.
I agree that you can change the thought experiment to rule out (1). But if you do, it loses all of its intuitive force. Think about it from the perspective of someone in the modified thought experiment:
You are 100% sure there is no other way to get as much utility as the mugger promises at any other time in the future of the universe. But somehow you aren’t so sure about the mugger’s offer. So this is literally the only possible chance in all of history to get an outcome this good, or even anywhere close. Do you pay then?
“Yes” seems like a plausible answer (even before the mugger opens her mouth). The real question is how you came to have such a bizarre state of knowledge about the world, not why you are taking the mugger seriously once you do!
Being known to be muggable attracts people to give it a try. But if we don’t pay the mugger in reality, then we can’t be known to be muggable, because we aren’t.
It doesn’t seem unreasonable to get quasi 100% if the amount the mugger promises is sufficiently high (“all the matter in all the reachable universe dedicated to building a single AI to define the highest number possible—that’s how much utility I promise you”).