I will if Michael Vassar judges that any reputational damage from the comment has an expected value less than $14.
You did it wrong on two counts: First, you need to ask me to pay you money, so the two utilities are easily commensurable and there’s no question of interpreting the results. Second, repeating the Counterfactual Mugging more than once tends to obscure the point, especially given the implication that you had a stopping algorithm rather than a fixed number of iterations. Of course it is now too late to do it over again correctly.
But with a trusted witness of the original die roll, or say paying $20 if the 100th decimal digit of pi (unknown to me currently) is 0, and otherwise demanding $1, we could totally mug, say, Derek Parfit and see what happens. Actually, I think I’ll forward this suggestion to Anders Sandberg and see what happens if he mugs Nick Bostrom. No one tell Bostrom before then, please.
Historical note: We ran this, the 100th decimal digit of pi was not 0, and Bostrom paid Sandberg, which Sandberg had correctly predicted Bostrom would do.
Before the die roll, there’s a 1⁄3 chance that you’ll get the reward ($20), and a 2⁄3 chance that you’ll be asked to pay the penalty. For the expected utility to be 0, (2/3)*|penalty| = (1/3)*$20. Multiply both sides by 3, and 2*|penalty| = $20, so |penalty| = $10.
But if I had stopped at just one roll of 5, I wouldn’t have been able to make this post, and that wouldn’t have been any fun!
Anyway, I thought that making a silly comment would be less painful than giving up actual money. It’s not like we’ve been trying hard to present ourselves in a particularly dignified manner on this blog, anyway. What’s wrong with wearing the clown suit once in a while?
It’s not like we’ve been trying hard to present ourselves in a particularly dignified manner on this blog, anyway.
I place importance on the opinions of outsiders who stumble across the site and see the things I say associated with my real name. Maybe we need an invite-only Lesswrong Premium™ where we sit around in clown suits discussing our sex lives (or lack thereof).
Second, repeating the Counterfactual Mugging more than once tends to obscure the point,
Surely if you’d take the bet once, you’d take it any number of times, so this shouldn’t make much of a difference- and I can’t see how stopping algorithm / fixed number of rolls makes a difference.
Few will care about a silly comment on one post, especially given the context. Anybody using it as ammunition will look really petty.
Better ammunition:”But when Eliezer was counterfactually mugged, he didn’t pay. How serious is he on his decision theory?”
Even if the procedural problems here give him a good reason not to ‘pay’, paying is better rhetorically. (though he may clarify that he won’t pay under similarly sloppy conditions again.)
Few will care about a silly comment on one post, especially given the context. Anybody using it as ammunition will look really petty.
I disagree. I think it could be used very effectively without explanation alongside a more serious criticism, possibly with a permalink to the actual comment.
I will if Michael Vassar judges that any reputational damage from the comment has an expected value less than $14.
You did it wrong on two counts: First, you need to ask me to pay you money, so the two utilities are easily commensurable and there’s no question of interpreting the results. Second, repeating the Counterfactual Mugging more than once tends to obscure the point, especially given the implication that you had a stopping algorithm rather than a fixed number of iterations. Of course it is now too late to do it over again correctly.
But with a trusted witness of the original die roll, or say paying $20 if the 100th decimal digit of pi (unknown to me currently) is 0, and otherwise demanding $1, we could totally mug, say, Derek Parfit and see what happens. Actually, I think I’ll forward this suggestion to Anders Sandberg and see what happens if he mugs Nick Bostrom. No one tell Bostrom before then, please.
Historical note: We ran this, the 100th decimal digit of pi was not 0, and Bostrom paid Sandberg, which Sandberg had correctly predicted Bostrom would do.
I will if Michael Vassar judges that any reputational damage from the comment has an expected value less than $14.
Don’t you mean $10?
2⁄3 of $20? Should be “less than $13”, actually.
Before the die roll, there’s a 1⁄3 chance that you’ll get the reward ($20), and a 2⁄3 chance that you’ll be asked to pay the penalty. For the expected utility to be 0, (2/3)*|penalty| = (1/3)*$20. Multiply both sides by 3, and 2*|penalty| = $20, so |penalty| = $10.
How’s that for minor reputational damage?
Crap. Never mind. You know, this happens when I’m sufficiently tired, and it’s scary. I am a poopy head.
I’ll take that as a successful mugging. ;)
How’s that for minor reputational damage?
But if I had stopped at just one roll of 5, I wouldn’t have been able to make this post, and that wouldn’t have been any fun!
Anyway, I thought that making a silly comment would be less painful than giving up actual money. It’s not like we’ve been trying hard to present ourselves in a particularly dignified manner on this blog, anyway. What’s wrong with wearing the clown suit once in a while?
I place importance on the opinions of outsiders who stumble across the site and see the things I say associated with my real name. Maybe we need an invite-only Lesswrong Premium™ where we sit around in clown suits discussing our sex lives (or lack thereof).
Surely if you’d take the bet once, you’d take it any number of times, so this shouldn’t make much of a difference- and I can’t see how stopping algorithm / fixed number of rolls makes a difference.
I would guess more reputational damage if you don’t.
There’s got to be a way to get positive press about a rash of muggings by intellectuals against other intellectuals.
Expected reputational damage is probably $a few hundred IMO. It could be picked up and used as ammunition against SIAI.
Few will care about a silly comment on one post, especially given the context. Anybody using it as ammunition will look really petty.
Better ammunition:”But when Eliezer was counterfactually mugged, he didn’t pay. How serious is he on his decision theory?”
Even if the procedural problems here give him a good reason not to ‘pay’, paying is better rhetorically. (though he may clarify that he won’t pay under similarly sloppy conditions again.)
But that isn’t supposed to be part of the Counterfactual Mugging scenario! Anyone would pay then.
I disagree. I think it could be used very effectively without explanation alongside a more serious criticism, possibly with a permalink to the actual comment.
it would all be more clear-cut if the amounts involved were a few hundred $. But yes, good point.