I don’t think it’s worthwhile to fight the terminology: ‘acausal’ makes sense as opposed to ‘causal’ as in ‘causal decision theory’. I think it’s pretty sensible and defensible, even if ‘timeless’ might’ve been a better choice.
No, the more I think about it, the more I think there is a serious problem here.
“Superrationality” is just a situation in which a certain bias—a certain deviation from actual rationality—is rewarded, when enough other people have the same bias. If a bunch of people all using a “superrational decision theory” manage to achieve the big collective payoff they sought by cooperating, it’s only because of the contingent fact that they happened to have a majority. And under that circumstance, ordinary decision theory would tell you to go with the flow and choose with that majority as well!
Superrationality is either an attempt to solve coordination problems through magical thinking, or it’s a fancy name for visibly favoring altruism in the hope that others will too, or it’s a preference for altruistic terminal values disguised as an appeal to rational self-interest.
If a bunch of people all using a “superrational decision theory” manage to achieve the big collective payoff they sought by cooperating, it’s only because of the contingent fact that they happened to have a majority.
Majority or whatever number of cooperating people happens to be sufficient to achieve whatever goal they are trying to achieve. Because of the advantages from cooperation the superational contingent will often not need to be larger than the remainder.
Quoting from Wikipedia because I have no real expertise on decision theory:
Note that a superrational player playing against a game-theoretic rational player will defect, since the strategy only assumes that the superrational players will agree. A superrational player playing against a player of uncertain superrationality will sometimes defect and sometimes cooperate.
How exactly does superrationality differ from membership in the Club Of Always Colluding With Each Other?
I don’t think it’s worthwhile to fight the terminology: ‘acausal’ makes sense as opposed to ‘causal’ as in ‘causal decision theory’. I think it’s pretty sensible and defensible, even if ‘timeless’ might’ve been a better choice.
No, the more I think about it, the more I think there is a serious problem here.
“Superrationality” is just a situation in which a certain bias—a certain deviation from actual rationality—is rewarded, when enough other people have the same bias. If a bunch of people all using a “superrational decision theory” manage to achieve the big collective payoff they sought by cooperating, it’s only because of the contingent fact that they happened to have a majority. And under that circumstance, ordinary decision theory would tell you to go with the flow and choose with that majority as well!
Superrationality is either an attempt to solve coordination problems through magical thinking, or it’s a fancy name for visibly favoring altruism in the hope that others will too, or it’s a preference for altruistic terminal values disguised as an appeal to rational self-interest.
Majority or whatever number of cooperating people happens to be sufficient to achieve whatever goal they are trying to achieve. Because of the advantages from cooperation the superational contingent will often not need to be larger than the remainder.
Not in a prisoner’s dilemma.
Quoting from Wikipedia because I have no real expertise on decision theory:
How exactly does superrationality differ from membership in the Club Of Always Colluding With Each Other?