Third, FDT isn’t actually the theory that leaves you with most expected utility on average. In fact, in many cases, it’s EDT (perhaps updateless) that leaves you with the most expected utility. For example, in the smoker’s lesion case, EDTers tend to finish better-off than other people. In smoker’s lesion, smoking correlates with worse health, but it doesn’t cause it. But EDTers are less likely to smoke, so on average they’ll have better health.
Uhh, suppose you get +1 utility for smoking and −10 utility if you get cancer. A population of EDT agents does not smoke at all, but let’s say 50% of them get cancer. All of the population of CDT agents smoke, and the same 50% of them get cancer.
Question: what population gets higher utility?
EDIT okay, I think I violated the premise of the thought experiment. HMMM. You can postulate that correlation and mechanism was just discovered, what those agents would do on the next time step? So, EDT agents would miss one smoking opportunity and then correct, as correlation vanishes, or maybe they get stuck not smocking at all, if all of them are EDT.
But you do agree that in my corrected version, EDT half of the agents miss one smoking opportunity?
E.g. Suppose someone decided to collect statistics for the first time, and will do it again 10 years later. They discover that smoking correlates with cancer and moreover find out that it’s entirely through the lesion. For next 10 years EDT agents do not smoke. All CDT agents do smoke. Then they collect the statistic again, and there is no correlation. EDT agents start smoking too or what? So, they just missed some smoking time?
Like, wouldn’t acting on this correlation destroy the correlation?
Uhh, suppose you get +1 utility for smoking and −10 utility if you get cancer. A population of EDT agents does not smoke at all, but let’s say 50% of them get cancer. All of the population of CDT agents smoke, and the same 50% of them get cancer.
Question: what population gets higher utility?
EDIT okay, I think I violated the premise of the thought experiment. HMMM. You can postulate that correlation and mechanism was just discovered, what those agents would do on the next time step? So, EDT agents would miss one smoking opportunity and then correct, as correlation vanishes, or maybe they get stuck not smocking at all, if all of them are EDT.
Yes that’s just a different thought experiment from the one I gave.
But you do agree that in my corrected version, EDT half of the agents miss one smoking opportunity?
E.g. Suppose someone decided to collect statistics for the first time, and will do it again 10 years later. They discover that smoking correlates with cancer and moreover find out that it’s entirely through the lesion. For next 10 years EDT agents do not smoke. All CDT agents do smoke. Then they collect the statistic again, and there is no correlation. EDT agents start smoking too or what? So, they just missed some smoking time?
Like, wouldn’t acting on this correlation destroy the correlation?