In essence, we’re being a predictor of the predictor, and right now we’re predicting that the predictor will go through with their punishment, because they will have predicted us predicting that they won’t. (This is the weakest link in my idea, and I want you guys to rip it to shreds.)
To clarify, I’m trying to say that the opposite problem shows up, where it’s kinda like a reverse of the Newcomb’s Paradox. Here’s what I’m thinking happens
Choice A is clear, and it entails the player getting tortured if they haven’t helped move forward the Basilisks creation.
Consequence B is opaque, and its content has already been set by the player:
If the player has predicted the AI will take both choice A and consequence B, then consequence B entails moving forward the Basilisks creation.
If the player has predicted that the Basilisk will not take choice A, then consequence B contains no effort made to move forward the Basilisks creation.
So for the point I made here:
To clarify, I’m trying to say that the opposite problem shows up, where it’s kinda like a reverse of the Newcomb’s Paradox. Here’s what I’m thinking happens