That’s a very interesting and insightful dissection of the problem. Do you think there might be a problem in the post that I copied the thought experiment from (which said that CDT presses, and EDT doesn’t), or did I make a mistake of taking it out of context?
Nathan1123
Karma: 35
[Question] Are ya winning, son?
Ok, if the button is thought of the “second agent” then I would guess TDT would not press the button. TDT would reason that the button will make the decision that the person who pressed the button is a psychopath, and therefore Paul should precommit to not press the button. Is that the right way to approach it?
[Question] How would Logical Decision Theories address the Psychopath Button?
When it comes to AI regulation, a certain train of thought comes to my mind:
Because a superintelligent AI has never existed, we can assume that creating one requires an enormous amount of energy and resources.
Due to global inequality, certain regions of the world have exponentially more access to energy and resources than other regions.
Therefore, when creating an AGI becomes possible, only a couple of regions of the world (and only a small number of people in these regions) will have the capability of doing so.
Therefore, enforcement of AI regulations only has to focus on this very limited population, and educate them on the existential threat of UFAI.
I think it is best to consider it analogous with another man-made existential threat, nuclear weapons. True, there is always a concern of a leak in international regulations (the Soviet nuclear arsenal that disappeared with the fall of the USSR, for example), but generally speaking there is a great filter of cost (such as procuring and refining uranium, training and educating domestic nuclear research, etc.) such that only a handful of nations in the world have ever built such weapons.
Newcombness of the Dining Philosophers Problem
Deontology and Tool AI
Okay, thank you!
I see what you mean, it works as long as both sides have roughly similar behavior.
For me, this would make intuitive sense if there was something in the problem that implied that Omega does this on a regular basis, analogous to the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. But as long as the problem is worded as a one-shot, once-in-a-lifetime scenario, then it comes off like the $10,000 is purely fictitious.