After googling Reflexive the only problem I have with using “Reflexive decision theories” is that it may prevent someone using Reflexive Decision Theory for an actual instance of a well developed decision theory. The name is perfect. (And the name UDT is just STUPID! It only makes sense by redefining ‘update’.)
I hope you don’t blame me too much for that, because it was Eliezer who gave it that name, and I was only complicit to the extent that I didn’t object.
It only makes sense by redefining ‘update’.
I think “updateless” was meant to refer to the fact that UDT doesn’t do explicit Bayesian updating, which doesn’t seem unreasonable to me...
(BTW I remember you once said you also didn’t like the language I used to describe UDT, but didn’t say why when I asked. I’m still curious about that.)
Not at all, and your work on the theory was excellent. I just hope that by the time the descendent decision theories evolve to a stable state that they have picked up a new moniker. The reflexive term sounds much more significant!
BTW I remember you once said you also didn’t like the language I used to describe UDT, but didn’t say why when I asked.
I think I would put less emphasis on subtracting updates and more on just which kind of information should be used. After all, not doing updates isn’t the important thing (or a sufficient thing), it is that the right piece of information is used at the end.
I’m afraid I’ve actually been negligent in my decision theory reading. I’ve actually forgotten a lot since I originally read your work from—what was it? - two years ago or so. I wouldn’t really have high confidence in my words if I tried to really explore the issues in detail these days.
Edit: Also, wedrifid_today considers the wording (and punctuation) used by wedrifid_last_month to be rather more hyperbolic than he would endorse.
After all, not doing updates isn’t the important thing, it is that the right piece of information is used at the end.
It’s an important thing, in that we don’t know how to do updates without getting misled in some strange situations. UDT uses other sources of information, and shows how that’s sufficient in principle, but the current puzzle is how to make use of the information that UDT doesn’t use, avoiding UDT’s logical cornucopia (so that one has to deal with resulting logical uncertainty, and resolve it to a limited extent based on observations).
You could include them in reflexive decision theories. When formalised, I suspect there may not be much of a distinction between theories that can know about themselves and theories that can modify themselves.
Most of the others just say “better” instead of saying what the desired sort of theory actually does.
Actually, it’s precisely for this reason that “reflexive” doesn’t work for what I originally wanted: I wanted to use a word to denote TDT, UDT, ADT, etc, not in terms of how they work but in terms of satisfying the five conditions, the most important of which is that they out-perform CDT. How a decision theory works is a secondary consideration to how well it works.
Yeah. I had thought about the bad connotations, then remembered that the usual superlative of “rationality” around here is “x-rationality”. But I hadn’t thought that this doesn’t change how an outsider would perceive the phrase.
While I’m not 100% sure this is the best possible name (not that I can think of anything better myself right now), at least it has precedent (Hofstadter’s superrationality, which is the only ‘mainstream’—i.e. notable enough for a Wikipedia article—name for something similar—unless you count the categorical imperative, but IMO the name categorical decision theory would be better for one specific theory than for a class.)
Yes, with this many options I think three-range voting is better than approval (0, 1) voting. We don’t want to settle on one that 2⁄3 of people love and 1⁄3 of people hate, rather than one that 1⁄2 of people love and 1⁄2 of people are indifferent toward.
Results of my brainstorming, threaded into separate comments for voting. Note karma sink at the end.
Reflexive decision theories
After googling Reflexive the only problem I have with using “Reflexive decision theories” is that it may prevent someone using Reflexive Decision Theory for an actual instance of a well developed decision theory. The name is perfect. (And the name UDT is just STUPID! It only makes sense by redefining ‘update’.)
I hope you don’t blame me too much for that, because it was Eliezer who gave it that name, and I was only complicit to the extent that I didn’t object.
I think “updateless” was meant to refer to the fact that UDT doesn’t do explicit Bayesian updating, which doesn’t seem unreasonable to me...
(BTW I remember you once said you also didn’t like the language I used to describe UDT, but didn’t say why when I asked. I’m still curious about that.)
Not at all, and your work on the theory was excellent. I just hope that by the time the descendent decision theories evolve to a stable state that they have picked up a new moniker. The reflexive term sounds much more significant!
I think I would put less emphasis on subtracting updates and more on just which kind of information should be used. After all, not doing updates isn’t the important thing (or a sufficient thing), it is that the right piece of information is used at the end.
I’m afraid I’ve actually been negligent in my decision theory reading. I’ve actually forgotten a lot since I originally read your work from—what was it? - two years ago or so. I wouldn’t really have high confidence in my words if I tried to really explore the issues in detail these days.
Edit: Also, wedrifid_today considers the wording (and punctuation) used by wedrifid_last_month to be rather more hyperbolic than he would endorse.
It’s an important thing, in that we don’t know how to do updates without getting misled in some strange situations. UDT uses other sources of information, and shows how that’s sufficient in principle, but the current puzzle is how to make use of the information that UDT doesn’t use, avoiding UDT’s logical cornucopia (so that one has to deal with resulting logical uncertainty, and resolve it to a limited extent based on observations).
Snap!
Most of the others just say “better” instead of saying what the desired sort of theory actually does.
Then what do we call decision theories capable of proving statements about self-modification?
You could include them in reflexive decision theories. When formalised, I suspect there may not be much of a distinction between theories that can know about themselves and theories that can modify themselves.
As a mathematician, I prefer using different notations for things until I’ve proved they’re identical. And in this case, I rather suspect they’re not.
Actually, it’s precisely for this reason that “reflexive” doesn’t work for what I originally wanted: I wanted to use a word to denote TDT, UDT, ADT, etc, not in terms of how they work but in terms of satisfying the five conditions, the most important of which is that they out-perform CDT. How a decision theory works is a secondary consideration to how well it works.
Superrational decision theories
(By the way, I worry that this phrase would sound cultish to anyone who wasn’t familiar with Hofstadter’s superrationality.)
Yeah. I had thought about the bad connotations, then remembered that the usual superlative of “rationality” around here is “x-rationality”. But I hadn’t thought that this doesn’t change how an outsider would perceive the phrase.
I learned superrationality in school. Not the name Hofstadter or anything about why superrationality is sane though.
The only problem with ‘superrationality’ is the connotation that CDT is rational. It’s just not!
While I’m not 100% sure this is the best possible name (not that I can think of anything better myself right now), at least it has precedent (Hofstadter’s superrationality, which is the only ‘mainstream’—i.e. notable enough for a Wikipedia article—name for something similar—unless you count the categorical imperative, but IMO the name categorical decision theory would be better for one specific theory than for a class.)
Rational decision theories
It’s a three-value range voting (-1, 0, 1), right? Or am I supposed to choose only one? (I’ve downvoted three and upvoted two plus the karma sink.)
Yes, with this many options I think three-range voting is better than approval (0, 1) voting. We don’t want to settle on one that 2⁄3 of people love and 1⁄3 of people hate, rather than one that 1⁄2 of people love and 1⁄2 of people are indifferent toward.
The problem is that the karma sink doesn’t work if abs(number of upvotes—number of downvotes) > 1...
Non-independent decision theories
Agreeable decision theories
Advanced decision theories
Acute decision theories
Good decision theories
Sapient decision theories
Non-stupid decision theories
Clever decision theories
KARMA SINK: I played chicken with the universe and lost!