My difficulty is in understanding why the concept of a perfect predictor is relevant to artificial intelligence.
Also, 2-boxing is indicated by inductive logic based on non-Omega situations. Given the special circumstances of Newcomb’s problem, it would seem unwise to rely on that. Deductive logic leads to 1-boxing.
You don’t need perfect prediction to develop an argument for one-boxing. If the predictor’s probability of correct prediction is p and the utility of the contents of the one-box is k times the utility of the contents of the two-box, then the expected utility of one-boxing is greater than that of two-boxing if p is greater than (k + 1) / 2k.
Also, 2-boxing is indicated by inductive logic based on non-Omega situations. Given the special circumstances of Newcomb’s problem, it would seem unwise to rely on that. Deductive logic leads to 1-boxing.
I agree that in general this is how it works. It’s rather like POAT that way… some people see it as one kind of problem, and other people see it as another kind of problem, and neither side can make sense of the other’s position.
I don’t think it counts as a matter for LMGTFY unless the answer pretty much screams at you on the results page before you even start clicking the links...
Making the assumption that the person you’re responding to hasn’t invested those two minutes can be risky, as the present instance shows. Maybe they have, but got different results.
Another risky assumption is that the other person is using the same Google that you are using. By default the search bar in Firefox directs me to the French Google (I’ve even looked for a way to change that, without success).
So you could end up looking like an ass, rather than a jerk, when you pull a LMGTFY and the recipient still doesn’t see what you’re seeing. It only works as a status move if you’re confident that most search options and variations will still pull up the relevant result.
More importantly, this is yet another data point in favor of the 10x norm. Unless of course we want LW to be Yet Another Internet Forum (complete with avatars).
(ETA: yes, in the comment linked here the 10X norm is intended to apply to posts, not comments. I favor the stronger version that applies to comments as well: look at the length of this comment thread, infer the time spent writing these various messages, the time wasted by readers watching Recent Comments, and compare with how long it would have taken to spell it out.)
Making the assumption… Another risky assumption...
’Strue. Those occurred to me about five minutes after I first replied to ciphergoth, when the implications of the fact that the link position changed based on where I was when I Googled finally penetrated my cerebral cortex. I considered noting it in an ETA, but I didn’t expect the comment thread to continue as far as it has.
If it takes two full minutes for my readership to find out what the terms mean, the onus is on me to link to it; if that only takes me three minutes and it saves two readers Googling, then it’s worth it. The LMGTFY boundary is closer to ten seconds or less.
Another option would have been to spell it out—that way a lot of readers would have known without Googling, and those who didn’t would have got answers right away.
I don’t disagree with this. My “corollary” comment above was too facile—when I recall my own behavior, it’s my standard for peevishly thinking LMGTFY, not actually linking it.
My difficulty is in understanding why the concept of a perfect predictor is relevant to artificial intelligence.
Also, 2-boxing is indicated by inductive logic based on non-Omega situations. Given the special circumstances of Newcomb’s problem, it would seem unwise to rely on that. Deductive logic leads to 1-boxing.
You don’t need perfect prediction to develop an argument for one-boxing. If the predictor’s probability of correct prediction is p and the utility of the contents of the one-box is k times the utility of the contents of the two-box, then the expected utility of one-boxing is greater than that of two-boxing if p is greater than (k + 1) / 2k.
I agree that in general this is how it works. It’s rather like POAT that way… some people see it as one kind of problem, and other people see it as another kind of problem, and neither side can make sense of the other’s position.
I’ve heard this sentiment expressed a fair bit, but I think I understand the argument for two-boxing perfectly, even though I’d one-box.
POAT?
Plane on a treadmill. (I’d pull out LMGTFY again, but I try to limit myself to one jerk-move per day.)
Er, did you actually Google it before saying that? For me it’s not even defined that way on the front page.
Yep. For me the first link (at work, second link now at home) is urbandictionary.com, and it’s the second definition.
I don’t think it counts as a matter for LMGTFY unless the answer pretty much screams at you on the results page before you even start clicking the links...
I personally ask for a link if two minutes of Googling and link-clicking gets me nothing; my standard for LMGTFY follows as a corollary.
Making the assumption that the person you’re responding to hasn’t invested those two minutes can be risky, as the present instance shows. Maybe they have, but got different results.
Another risky assumption is that the other person is using the same Google that you are using. By default the search bar in Firefox directs me to the French Google (I’ve even looked for a way to change that, without success).
So you could end up looking like an ass, rather than a jerk, when you pull a LMGTFY and the recipient still doesn’t see what you’re seeing. It only works as a status move if you’re confident that most search options and variations will still pull up the relevant result.
More importantly, this is yet another data point in favor of the 10x norm. Unless of course we want LW to be Yet Another Internet Forum (complete with avatars).
(ETA: yes, in the comment linked here the 10X norm is intended to apply to posts, not comments. I favor the stronger version that applies to comments as well: look at the length of this comment thread, infer the time spent writing these various messages, the time wasted by readers watching Recent Comments, and compare with how long it would have taken to spell it out.)
’Strue. Those occurred to me about five minutes after I first replied to ciphergoth, when the implications of the fact that the link position changed based on where I was when I Googled finally penetrated my cerebral cortex. I considered noting it in an ETA, but I didn’t expect the comment thread to continue as far as it has.
Oh, note also that Cyan’s first use of LMGTFY was I think legit—finding my blog through Google is pretty straightforward from my username.
I don’t think it’s fair to count the meta-discussion against Cyan when weighing this up. Anything can spark meta-discussion here.
If it takes two full minutes for my readership to find out what the terms mean, the onus is on me to link to it; if that only takes me three minutes and it saves two readers Googling, then it’s worth it. The LMGTFY boundary is closer to ten seconds or less.
Another option would have been to spell it out—that way a lot of readers would have known without Googling, and those who didn’t would have got answers right away.
I don’t disagree with this. My “corollary” comment above was too facile—when I recall my own behavior, it’s my standard for peevishly thinking LMGTFY, not actually linking it.