(this is a disclaimer) As far as I can tell…
′
The difference between the two is that for omega it is stipulated that omega is always right but for the psychologist your evidence for this is that they got the last 100 right (or that they say so?)
I’m gonna ignore the case where you don’t know they actually got 100 right.
Getting 100 in a row implies that they are more than “fairly accurate”. Otherwise, maybe they did predictions till they happened to get 100 in a row then called you in or got really lucky.
Assuming, for convenience, that these 100 are the only 100, (and assuming you know this) they probably have a reliable way to predict your decision.
This may be because they’re wizards exercising mind control, or just psychologists using priming, or hypnotists and so on: that is, their prediction may be aided by deliberately influencing your decision.
For now I’m gonna model this like they don’t exert any influence.
Whether they do this by being omega or by memes and stalking their methods were very accurate for the 100 other people and so probably are for you.
If they predict two box you get 1000 if you two box and 0 if you one box.
If they predict one box you get 1,001,000 if you two box and 1,000,000 if you one box.
If your newcomb’s strategy can influence their decision by a 1/1000 being a one boxer dominates being a two boxer.
The fact that they were right 100 times in a row before you means your newcomb’s strategy probably has some influence. This isn’t a given. Maybe their algorithm breaks down because you’ve thought of newcomb’s problem, or are relevantly different from the previous 100 in a way that will break the prediction.
Ok so you probably agree with all that anyway. I was a little confused.
But, if there were a significant number of one boxers in the 100 previous the psychologist correctly predicted their strategy. probably they did not try to deliberately signal that they were one boxers well before encountering the problem.
So, simply being a one-boxer probably reliably signals that you are a one boxer to the psychologist. And, deliberately signalling that you are makes you different from the people it worked on. You might throw the psychologist off.
Bringing the possibility that they are right because they influence people back, you should still one box (if you can) and probably make a big show of precommiting to doing it, because the psychologist might prefer being right to saving 999,000 with probability >0.001.
the signalling is probably only a bad idea if the psychologist is genuinely predicting stuff, but their algorithm is easily thrown off.
upvote because more like this.
(this is a disclaimer) As far as I can tell… ′ The difference between the two is that for omega it is stipulated that omega is always right but for the psychologist your evidence for this is that they got the last 100 right (or that they say so?)
I’m gonna ignore the case where you don’t know they actually got 100 right.
Getting 100 in a row implies that they are more than “fairly accurate”. Otherwise, maybe they did predictions till they happened to get 100 in a row then called you in or got really lucky.
Assuming, for convenience, that these 100 are the only 100, (and assuming you know this) they probably have a reliable way to predict your decision.
This may be because they’re wizards exercising mind control, or just psychologists using priming, or hypnotists and so on: that is, their prediction may be aided by deliberately influencing your decision.
For now I’m gonna model this like they don’t exert any influence.
Whether they do this by being omega or by memes and stalking their methods were very accurate for the 100 other people and so probably are for you.
If they predict two box you get 1000 if you two box and 0 if you one box. If they predict one box you get 1,001,000 if you two box and 1,000,000 if you one box.
If your newcomb’s strategy can influence their decision by a 1/1000 being a one boxer dominates being a two boxer. The fact that they were right 100 times in a row before you means your newcomb’s strategy probably has some influence. This isn’t a given. Maybe their algorithm breaks down because you’ve thought of newcomb’s problem, or are relevantly different from the previous 100 in a way that will break the prediction.
Ok so you probably agree with all that anyway. I was a little confused. But, if there were a significant number of one boxers in the 100 previous the psychologist correctly predicted their strategy. probably they did not try to deliberately signal that they were one boxers well before encountering the problem.
So, simply being a one-boxer probably reliably signals that you are a one boxer to the psychologist. And, deliberately signalling that you are makes you different from the people it worked on. You might throw the psychologist off.
Bringing the possibility that they are right because they influence people back, you should still one box (if you can) and probably make a big show of precommiting to doing it, because the psychologist might prefer being right to saving 999,000 with probability >0.001.
the signalling is probably only a bad idea if the psychologist is genuinely predicting stuff, but their algorithm is easily thrown off.