I don’t see why the principle of dominance would give the wrong action. It just says that you should take an action if it is never improved by another action regardless of other actors.
Well, you can consider some situations and think, does it give good recommendation in them? If not, maybe it’s a motivation to start the search for other principles?
Here is one, even more exaggerated:
Imagine even stronger predictor. It offers you 20 Newcomb’s games in a row. And the predictor is already gone, dead etc. For simplicity boxes you didn’t take burst into flames or something. CDT agent will not experiment with this and just straight up two box 20 times in a row. Where as normal humans would pick one box some of the time, see it gives them more money and switch their strategy.
Like, what percent of humans would two box 20 times in a row you think? Like, 0.1%? Some philosophy professors among them apparently.
I don’t see why the principle of dominance would give the wrong action. It just says that you should take an action if it is never improved by another action regardless of other actors.
Well, you can consider some situations and think, does it give good recommendation in them? If not, maybe it’s a motivation to start the search for other principles?
Here is one, even more exaggerated:
Imagine even stronger predictor. It offers you 20 Newcomb’s games in a row. And the predictor is already gone, dead etc. For simplicity boxes you didn’t take burst into flames or something. CDT agent will not experiment with this and just straight up two box 20 times in a row. Where as normal humans would pick one box some of the time, see it gives them more money and switch their strategy.
Like, what percent of humans would two box 20 times in a row you think? Like, 0.1%? Some philosophy professors among them apparently.