I think you might benefit from designing your own UDT 1.0 variant (i.e. a variant of Wei Dai’s original) that doesn’t require logical omniscience/infinite compute. Note that UDT 1.1 is mentioned indirectly in the published Death in Damascus paper, but what is actually described works similarly to UDT 1.0. Martín Soto and Abram Demski have put some effort into writing useful notes. I think they’re still missing a precise constructive description of Bayesian Logical Inductors (BLIs), but you could partner with a mathematician and go around to the researchers involved until you’ve collected enough mental model content to have it written up.
I think you might benefit from designing your own UDT 1.0 variant (i.e. a variant of Wei Dai’s original) that doesn’t require logical omniscience/infinite compute. Note that UDT 1.1 is mentioned indirectly in the published Death in Damascus paper, but what is actually described works similarly to UDT 1.0. Martín Soto and Abram Demski have put some effort into writing useful notes. I think they’re still missing a precise constructive description of Bayesian Logical Inductors (BLIs), but you could partner with a mathematician and go around to the researchers involved until you’ve collected enough mental model content to have it written up.