There aren’t the societies based on agents that can read each others source code,
Human beings can probabilistically read each others’ source code. That’s why we use primitive versions of noncausal decision theory like getting angry, wanting to take revenge, etc.
Human beings can probabilistically read each others’ source code
This seems like a weird way of say, humans can make/refine hypotheses about other agents. What does talking about source code give you?
That’s why we use primitive versions of noncausal decision theory like getting angry, wanting to take revenge, etc.
Tit for tat (which seems like revenge) works in normal game theories for IPD (of infinite length) which is a closer to what we experience in everyday life. I thought Non-causal decision theories are needed for winning on one-shots?
In the case of humans, “talking about source code” is perhaps not that useful, though we do have source code, it’s written in quaternary and has a rather complex probabilistic compiler. And that source code was optimized by a purely causal process, demonstrating the fact that causal decision theory agents self modify into acausal decision theory agents in many circumstances.
Revenge and anger work for one shot problems, for example if some stranger comes and sexually assaults your wife, they cannot escape your wrath by “saying oh it’s only one shot, I’m a stranger in a huge city you’ll never see me again so there’s no point taking revenge”. You want to punch the in the face as an end in itself now, this is a simple way of our brains being a bit acausal, decision theory wise.
I thought anger and revenge (used in one shot situations) might be generalising from what to do in the iterated version which is what we had for more of our evolutionary history.
I kinda like a-causal decision theory for choosing to vote at all. I will choose to vote so that other people like me choose to vote.
Human beings can probabilistically read each others’ source code. That’s why we use primitive versions of noncausal decision theory like getting angry, wanting to take revenge, etc.
This seems like a weird way of say, humans can make/refine hypotheses about other agents. What does talking about source code give you?
Tit for tat (which seems like revenge) works in normal game theories for IPD (of infinite length) which is a closer to what we experience in everyday life. I thought Non-causal decision theories are needed for winning on one-shots?
In the case of humans, “talking about source code” is perhaps not that useful, though we do have source code, it’s written in quaternary and has a rather complex probabilistic compiler. And that source code was optimized by a purely causal process, demonstrating the fact that causal decision theory agents self modify into acausal decision theory agents in many circumstances.
Revenge and anger work for one shot problems, for example if some stranger comes and sexually assaults your wife, they cannot escape your wrath by “saying oh it’s only one shot, I’m a stranger in a huge city you’ll never see me again so there’s no point taking revenge”. You want to punch the in the face as an end in itself now, this is a simple way of our brains being a bit acausal, decision theory wise.
I thought anger and revenge (used in one shot situations) might be generalising from what to do in the iterated version which is what we had for more of our evolutionary history.
I kinda like a-causal decision theory for choosing to vote at all. I will choose to vote so that other people like me choose to vote.