User Controls
Posts by Meikai
-
2021-11-14 at 1:28 AM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox ThreadTwo boxing is literally letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, where the good usually gets you rich and perfection gets you half a pay check.
-
2021-11-14 at 1:24 AM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread
Originally posted by Nigger Nintendo Your strategy guarantees you nothing, you have no idea what Omega predicted.
You choose a strategy that's optimized for all cases regardless of probabilities, despite the fact that it is (again, demonstrably, proven in the hypothetical itself) suboptimal for the most likely case. Your strategy guarantees you at least a thousand dollars, my strategy doesn't guarantee anything, but in the most likely case, reliably provides the optimal results for that case (that Omega's prediction matches your choice, whatever it is - there is no better outcome for this case than $1000000). -
2021-11-13 at 11 PM UTC in Would you rather fuck an 11 year old girl or boy
Originally posted by Donald Trump I'd bet $1,000 that within out lifetimes pedo acceptance will be something the mainstream media starts pushing, and as a result stl1 suddenly starts advocating for allowing adult on child sex.
I don't think pedo acceptance will ever progress beyond "we should pity them and restrain ourselves from violence against non-offenders". Not sure it'll get much better than that for them though. OP has probably never touched a little girl and if he never does, I could see future in which stl1 disavows his comments about running OP over. I legitimately cannot see the clown world in which OP diddles a bunch of kids and stl1 gets angry at other people for saying they want to run OP over for it.
I'm pretty blackpilled but c'mon. The world can't be that bad... can it? -
2021-11-13 at 10:24 PM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread
Originally posted by Nigger Nintendo No you will consistently get $1000 less than whatever you could have gotten.
Which will usually be $1000000. You will consistently get $1000 more than whatever you could have gotten, which will usually be $1000. ie I will usually, reliably end up with $999000 more than you. Your strategy never loses entirely but seldom wins, my strategy often wins and seldom loses entirely. -
2021-11-13 at 10:11 PM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread
-
2021-11-13 at 9:51 PM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread
-
2021-11-13 at 7:54 PM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Threadhttps://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JTekFwz3rWjsirBbr/2020-philpapers-survey-results
People who agree with one boxers: aestheticians and Greco-Roman philosophy enjoyers
People who agree with two boxers: basically every other field of philosophy
I have the power of Zeus and anime on my side. -
2021-11-13 at 7:38 PM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread
Originally posted by Lanny So your choice has no causal impact on what box b contains? And you get box b with either choice right?
Then the only thing you’re choosing between is getting 1k more than you would have otherwise. Sure sounds like A+B is correct.
Omega's prediction of your choice is the only thing with a causal impact on what box b contains, and Omega's predictions correlate extremely well with the actual choice players make. Your choice could conflict with the prediction, it's just unlikely. Knowing this to be true, you should select the box using a strategy which maximizes for utility in cases for which "my choice will match the prediction" is true (because it is the most likely case). -
2021-11-13 at 7:29 PM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread
Originally posted by Nigger Nintendo Like I said you do not get brownie points for Omega being wrong or right.
Like I said, no. Depending on your choice, you just get a fuckton of utility on the basis of whether Omega was right or wrong. Not brownie points - the thing we actually care about. Ignoring the fact that Omega is more likely than not to be right is asinine. -
2021-11-13 at 7:08 PM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread"noooo it might be wrong this time the box is already full or empty my decision can't change anything i'm going to reliably come out with more utility because i'll always win something"
"i'm going to reliably come out with more utility because the predictor's predictions are reliable by definition, and my strategy maximizes for utility in cases for which that is true."
-
2021-11-13 at 7:01 PM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox ThreadIt doesn't need to be 100% reliable (aka infallible), it just needs to be reliable. There's justification to believe it will be reliable when I choose based on Omega's track record/the reliable predictor's inherent, definitional reliability. What justification do you have for supposing it will be unreliable when you choose?
It's like saying it's reasonable to make decisions based on the possibility the sun might not rise tomorrow (admittedly, the data on Omega's track record isn't quite that good but it is certainly an example of the more ambiguous "reliability" implied by the - obviously far superior - setup you chose.) -
2021-11-13 at 6:36 PM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread
-
2021-11-13 at 6:34 PM UTC in Kyle Rittenhouse: Am I missing something?
Originally posted by Donald Trump Prosecutors are the scum of the earth though.
Lawyers really. Given the chance, a defense lawyer will let an actual child molester go free and a prosecutor will imprison someone accused but innocent of child molestation. And judges all used to be lawyers for the most part. The whole system is built on slimy narcissistic cokeheads. -
2021-11-13 at 6:27 PM UTC in Political centrism is the only reasonable positionPictured, the average centrist intellectually soaring above the unclean masses of wingcucks:
It's true. We are an enlightened breed. Centrism is to politics what atheism is to religion. We are free from the dogmas of party lines, unbeholden to any particular creed beyond rational and pragmatic politics. We are the peacemakers - blessed - and the diplomats who must form and lead actual coalitions. -
2021-11-13 at 6:02 PM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread
-
2021-11-13 at 5:50 PM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread
-
2021-11-13 at 5:45 PM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread"The correct answer is the answer in which you receive the greatest utility only in cases where a reliable predictor is actually unreliable."
-
2021-11-13 at 5:23 PM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox ThreadAnd for the record, the Wikipedia formulation changes nothing here. The predictor is inherently reliable. You don't know what it has predicted, but you do know that whatever it has predicted will reliably be true. ie you know that if you pick A+B, the predictor will have reliably predicted that you would pick A+B, and you will reliably receive only $1000.
-
2021-11-13 at 5:10 PM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread
Originally posted by Nigger Nintendo No that's wrong. It contains whatever it contains. You're not going to change the outcome by taking both boxes. This can't be any clearer. If Omega believed you were going to pick B, it will be full, if not then not. But that doesn't matter now.
What Omega believed you were going to pick is most likely to be what you eventually pick. You can't change what's in the box. You can change what you pick, and Omega will likely have predicted that you would do so, and so the boxes will likely have been filled accordingly. This is fine. It doesn't break anything. Reality still works the same way it did beforehand.
Originally posted by Nigger Nintendo It's got nothing to do with liking it or not, you just have rooted a false sense of superiority inside refusing the premises of the scenario.
You're the one trying to refuse the premise that your suboptimal strategy has been demonstrably and reliably proven to be suboptimal within the thought experiment itself. 🤷
Originally posted by Nigger Nintendo It's a hole in your setup, not my fault. You've already precommitted to the idea that you're making the optimal decision but you just cannot acknowledge the fact that whatever is in the boxes is already whatever is in them.
You say "whatever's in the boxes" like it's random chance, but the reality is "what is in the boxes most likely corresponds to a correct prediction by Omega".
EDIT:
Originally posted by Nigger Nintendo From Wikipedia, Newcomb's Paradox without HTS fucking it up with his transsexual retard brain
I took the formulation of the question from Eliezer Yudkowsky's little essay on it. This setup might predate that essay, I dunno, but I deemed it sufficient and more importantly fun. Because this is an SG thread.
I've even quoted his essay ITT. -
2021-11-13 at 4:58 PM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread
Originally posted by Lanny > calls people pseuds
> spend pages and pages of this thread trying to demonstrate how smart you are by convincing simpletons of the wrong solution with sophistry
Hey, hey. I'm fully open to the possibility that I'm demonstrating how retarded I am, but I'm undeniably also demonstrating what is correct. By choosing the winning answer. If the answer you choose (that answer being the one with greater utility only in cases where Omega proves itself to be unreliable) loses to the "wrong" answer 100 times out of 101, maybe the "wrong" answer isn't wrong.
