Here’s Abram’s post. It discusses a more technical setting, but essentially this fits the story of choosing how to channel behavior/results of some other algorithm/contract, without making use of those results when making the choice for how to use them eventually (that is, the choice of a policy for responding to facts is in the logical past from those facts, and so can be used by those facts). Drescher’s ASP example more clearly illustrates the problem of making the contract’s consequentialist reasoning easier, in this case the contract is the predictor and its behavior is stipulated to be available to the agent (and so easily diagonalized). The agent must specifically avoid making use of knowledge of the contract’s behavior when deciding how to respond to that behavior. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the agent doesn’t have the knowledge, as long as it doesn’t use it for this particular decision about policy for what to do in response to the knowledge. In fact the agent could use the knowledge immediately after choosing the policy, by applying the policy to the knowledge, which turns ASP into Transparent Newcomb. A big agent wants to do small agent reasoning in order for that reasoning to be legible to those interested in its results.
So it’s not so much a tradeoff between updating and not updating, it’s instead staged computation of updating (on others’ behavior) that makes your own reasoning more legible to others that you want to be able to coordinate with you. If some facts you make use of vary with other’s will, you want the dependence to remain simple to the other’s mind (so that the other may ask what happens with those facts depending on what they do), which in practice might take the form of delaying the updating. The problem with updateful reasoning that destroys strategicness seems to be different though, an updateful agent just stops listening to UDT policy, so there is no dependence of updateful agent’s actions on the shared UDT policy that coordinates all instances of the agent, this dependence is broken (or never established) rather than merely being too difficult to see for the coordinating agent (by being too far in the logical future).
Here’s Abram’s post. It discusses a more technical setting, but essentially this fits the story of choosing how to channel behavior/results of some other algorithm/contract, without making use of those results when making the choice for how to use them eventually (that is, the choice of a policy for responding to facts is in the logical past from those facts, and so can be used by those facts). Drescher’s ASP example more clearly illustrates the problem of making the contract’s consequentialist reasoning easier, in this case the contract is the predictor and its behavior is stipulated to be available to the agent (and so easily diagonalized). The agent must specifically avoid making use of knowledge of the contract’s behavior when deciding how to respond to that behavior. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the agent doesn’t have the knowledge, as long as it doesn’t use it for this particular decision about policy for what to do in response to the knowledge. In fact the agent could use the knowledge immediately after choosing the policy, by applying the policy to the knowledge, which turns ASP into Transparent Newcomb. A big agent wants to do small agent reasoning in order for that reasoning to be legible to those interested in its results.
So it’s not so much a tradeoff between updating and not updating, it’s instead staged computation of updating (on others’ behavior) that makes your own reasoning more legible to others that you want to be able to coordinate with you. If some facts you make use of vary with other’s will, you want the dependence to remain simple to the other’s mind (so that the other may ask what happens with those facts depending on what they do), which in practice might take the form of delaying the updating. The problem with updateful reasoning that destroys strategicness seems to be different though, an updateful agent just stops listening to UDT policy, so there is no dependence of updateful agent’s actions on the shared UDT policy that coordinates all instances of the agent, this dependence is broken (or never established) rather than merely being too difficult to see for the coordinating agent (by being too far in the logical future).