IMHO the trouble with this post is that it either works too well or too poorly as an analogy. If you see what the “optional variant” is hinting, then you’re going to have difficulty discussing this abstract version of the problem without falling back on cached beliefs from real problems, at which point we might as well drop the analogy and discuss the real problems. If you don’t see what the “optional variant” is referring to, then you’re going to have difficulty discussing the abstract version of the problem because the setup sounds too arbitrary and silly.
I’m not downvoting, though; it was a good try. I can’t even quite articulate what it is about this problem that comes off as “too silly”. The original Newcomb problem, the Prisoners’ Dilemma, even the “Clippy” metaphor itself should sound equally silly, yet somehow those analogies come off as more intriguing and elicit more discussion.
I think it’s because it’s so transparent that there’s not really a problem here. This is framed so that it’s obviously a good idea to give Clippy what he wants (yes I’m projecting gender onto the paperclip machine, shush).
In the more traditional setups it makes it explicitly clear that you can lie to Paul Ekman. But laws are harder to break than promises.
As far as the real world important implication goes: does this have something to do with the US healthcare bill?
IMHO the trouble with this post is that it either works too well or too poorly as an analogy. If you see what the “optional variant” is hinting, then you’re going to have difficulty discussing this abstract version of the problem without falling back on cached beliefs from real problems, at which point we might as well drop the analogy and discuss the real problems. If you don’t see what the “optional variant” is referring to, then you’re going to have difficulty discussing the abstract version of the problem because the setup sounds too arbitrary and silly.
I’m not downvoting, though; it was a good try. I can’t even quite articulate what it is about this problem that comes off as “too silly”. The original Newcomb problem, the Prisoners’ Dilemma, even the “Clippy” metaphor itself should sound equally silly, yet somehow those analogies come off as more intriguing and elicit more discussion.
I think it’s because it’s so transparent that there’s not really a problem here. This is framed so that it’s obviously a good idea to give Clippy what he wants (yes I’m projecting gender onto the paperclip machine, shush).
In the more traditional setups it makes it explicitly clear that you can lie to Paul Ekman. But laws are harder to break than promises.
As far as the real world important implication goes: does this have something to do with the US healthcare bill?