I was reacting to the lack of hedging or explicit uncertainty in the first line “If we’re in a sim, it’s being used for acausal trade”. Possibly Tom didn’t mean to express very high confidence by it (I see that in a more formal occasion he does explicitly state his uncertainty about acausal trade[1]), but I feel an obligation to err on the side of caution here, in case some readers do interpret it as expressing high confidence.
Quote from the link: Of course, unlike the causal case, whether consensus goods get funded depends on whether agents want to do acausal cooperation at all—which depends on their decision theories and their beliefs about their degree of correlation with others.
Ah, cool, yeah, fair enough. I interpreted that as more of a title, and am used to titles usually skipping epistemic qualifiers because you really want them to be short.
I was reacting to the lack of hedging or explicit uncertainty in the first line “If we’re in a sim, it’s being used for acausal trade”. Possibly Tom didn’t mean to express very high confidence by it (I see that in a more formal occasion he does explicitly state his uncertainty about acausal trade[1]), but I feel an obligation to err on the side of caution here, in case some readers do interpret it as expressing high confidence.
Quote from the link: Of course, unlike the causal case, whether consensus goods get funded depends on whether agents want to do acausal cooperation at all—which depends on their decision theories and their beliefs about their degree of correlation with others.
Ah, cool, yeah, fair enough. I interpreted that as more of a title, and am used to titles usually skipping epistemic qualifiers because you really want them to be short.