That would be bad if for no other reason then for the opportunity cost of the lost future value of the solar system.
(although I agree that it is unnecessary to add the death-is-bad axiom, since in this case, pleasure-is-good does the work)
Measure
Karma: 1,733
In the racing companies example, there is no coercion involved, but the imperfect information element still allows for a positive-sum-with-losers outcome.
Suppose on each day the student rules out all subsequent days, concluding that the test must be today since that’s the only day left, but stops reasoning there and goes to class having “proven” that there will be a test that day.
Same here. The strategy with these is start full-hot to bring the hot water to the shower quickest, then back off a bit to an appropriate temperature. In my experience, this is a pretty consistent position and not hard to get right first try.
An alternative to the bridge analogy would be a wall that doesn’t fully enclose your velociraptor exhibit. Until the gaps are closed, building the wall higher is fence-post security.
I like this lens. I’m not sure if I have anything useful to say about your posts, but I enjoyed reading them.
My choice for the main map:
Class: Warrior
Path: LLRRRLLR (the single-enemy path)My reasoning:
A Warrior with at least a Shield and only one previous encounter beats The Collector 100% of the time (135/135 in the dataset).
My choice for the bonus map:
Class: Warrior
Path: RRRLLLLR (pick up the Armor, Shield, and Powder)My reasoning:
Armor and Shield are both pretty effective for the Warrior, and the fewer Enemy encounters seems to be better.
I’m a bit worried that this is too simplistic, but the only other path that makes sense doesn’t seem to be quite as good for any of the classes. There may be some additional synergy between the Armor and Shield beyond their individual synergy with the Warrior class.
so there is no deterrence value in publicly prosecuting her
It doesn’t have to deter her. It’s following through on your threat to show others that you’re the sort of person/government/society that follows through on your threats.
Does this work?
Player 1 makes a move for White.
Player 2 has option to switch colors
Black player makes a move
White player has option to switch colors
Play continues with White’s 2nd move as normal Armageddon.
I suppose you could wait to start the timer until after Player 1 chooses. The first move and response plus choosing shouldn’t take very long since it can probably be fully precomputed.
So AI slop is horseradish?
Someone needs to pass a law that all current Australian MPs get automatic citizenship.
there’s no way for a person to test if they have the lesion
Can’t they just check whether they enjoy smoking?
US population in 1950 was about half what it is now, and population density in cities has probably increased even more. The counterfactual with a 0% vaccination rate today is surely much worse than 400-500 deaths per year.
Wouldn’t this be analogous to a LLM with a very tiny context window in addition to frozen weights?
This confuses me. Are you saying the CDT agent does not have “the ability to alter outcomes of future interactions”?
Yes, but EY’s statement implies that all (1, 2, 3) must be true for reciprocity to be strategic. There are iterated contexts where 1 and/or 2 do not hold (for example, a CDT agent playing iterated prisoner’s dilemma against a simple tit-for-tat bot).
Eliezer Yudkowsky: Reciprocity in humans is an executing adaptation. It is not strategically convergent for all minds toward all other minds. It’s strategic only
By LDT agents
Toward sufficiently strong LDT-agent-predictors
With negotiating power.
I assume this is referring to a one-shot context? Reciprocity seems plenty strategic for other sorts of agents/counterparties in an iterated context.
Perhaps for much of the planets lifetime, the earth was a graveyard of pristine corpses, forests of bodies, oceans of carcasses, a world littered with the indigestible dead.
Why wouldn’t corpses would have been claimed by macroscopic scavengers?
Would you say that a universe with a single person who lives 1 year in happiness is equally as valuable as one in which a single person lives 1000 years in happiness?