Do you have a quote where Eliezier says rationality doesn’t exist?
No, but I don’t think that he shares your idea of perfect theoretical rationality anyway. From that point there no need to say that it doesn’t exist.
I think that it’s Eliezer position that it’s good enough that TDT provides the right answer when the other agent doesn’t specifically choose to punish TDT.
But I don’t want to dig up a specific quote at the moment.
Regardless, I disagree with TDT, but that’s a future article.
You are still putting assumption about nonentanglement into your models. Questions about the actions of nonentangled actors are like asking how many angels can stand of the pin of a nail.
They are far removed from the kind of rationality of the sequences. You reason far away from reality. That’s a typical problem with thinking too much in terms of hypotheticals instead of basing your reasoning on real world references.
In order to prove that it is a problem, you have to find a real world situation that I’ve called incorrectly due to my decision to start reasoning from a theoretical model.
In general that’s hard without knowing many real world situations that you have judged.
But there’s a recent example. The fact that different people won’t come up with different definitions of knowledge if you ask them would be one recent example of concentrating too much on a definition and too little on actually engaging with what different people think.
No, but I don’t think that he shares your idea of
perfect theoretical rationalityanyway. From that point there no need to say that it doesn’t exist.I think that it’s Eliezer position that it’s good enough that TDT provides the right answer when the other agent doesn’t specifically choose to punish TDT.
But I don’t want to dig up a specific quote at the moment.
You are still putting assumption about nonentanglement into your models. Questions about the actions of nonentangled actors are like asking how many angels can stand of the pin of a nail.
They are far removed from the kind of rationality of the sequences. You reason far away from reality. That’s a typical problem with thinking too much in terms of hypotheticals instead of basing your reasoning on real world references.
In order to prove that it is a problem, you have to find a real world situation that I’ve called incorrectly due to my decision to start reasoning from a theoretical model.
In general that’s hard without knowing many real world situations that you have judged. But there’s a recent example. The fact that different people won’t come up with different definitions of
knowledgeif you ask them would be one recent example of concentrating too much on a definition and too little on actually engaging with what different people think.