It’s a counter-example to the back-then prevailing theory of decision making, which is a foundational discipline in AI. So yes, it has a very important use in reality.
I am also not quite sure how is it a counter-example.
Newcomb’s problem involves “choice”. If you are not going to discard causality (which I’m not willing to do), the only sensible interpretation is that your choice when you are in front of the two boxes doesn’t matter (or is predetermined, same thing). The choice that matters is the one you’ve made in the past when you picked your decision algorithm.
Given this, I come to the conclusion that you should pick your decision algorithm based on some improbable side-effect unknown to you at the time you were making the choice that matters.
If by prevailing we agree to mean “accepted as true by the majority of people who worked on the subject”, then it’s safe to say that causal decistion theory was the prevailing theory, and CDT two-boxes, so it’s sub-optimal and so Newcomb is a counter-example.
The choice that matters is the one you’ve made in the past when you picked your decision algorithm.
That is exactly the crux of the matter: decision theory must be faced with problem of source code stability and self-alignment.
you should pick your decision algorithm based on some improbable side-effect unknown to you at the time you were making the choice that matters.
Well, there’s a probabilistic Newcomb problem and it’s relevant in strategic decision making, so it’s not very improbable. It’s like the Prisoner’s dilemma, once you know it you start to see it everywhere.
It’s a counter-example to the back-then prevailing theory of decision making, which is a foundational discipline in AI. So yes, it has a very important use in reality.
In which sense do you use the word “prevailing”?
I am also not quite sure how is it a counter-example.
Newcomb’s problem involves “choice”. If you are not going to discard causality (which I’m not willing to do), the only sensible interpretation is that your choice when you are in front of the two boxes doesn’t matter (or is predetermined, same thing). The choice that matters is the one you’ve made in the past when you picked your decision algorithm.
Given this, I come to the conclusion that you should pick your decision algorithm based on some improbable side-effect unknown to you at the time you were making the choice that matters.
If by prevailing we agree to mean “accepted as true by the majority of people who worked on the subject”, then it’s safe to say that causal decistion theory was the prevailing theory, and CDT two-boxes, so it’s sub-optimal and so Newcomb is a counter-example.
That is exactly the crux of the matter: decision theory must be faced with problem of source code stability and self-alignment.
Well, there’s a probabilistic Newcomb problem and it’s relevant in strategic decision making, so it’s not very improbable. It’s like the Prisoner’s dilemma, once you know it you start to see it everywhere.
I don’t see it as sub-optimal (I two-box in case you haven’t guessed it already).
I don’t understand what that means. Can you ELI5?
OK. Throw out the word “improbable”. You are still left with
You haven’t made much progress.