4 ms·
A solution that predicts one-boxing is good. At least that's what I think. Curiously, everybody but me in my academic community seems to lean towards two-boxing
by jonathanstrange 4y ago
A solution that predicts one-boxing is good. At least that's what I think. Curiously, everybody but me in my academic community seems to lean towards two-boxing, which is one of the rare cases when I have persistent troubles understanding others' intuitions. I mean, I can understand two-boxing as a recommendation in a one-off case, but for me any general solution to a decision problem needs to be acceptable and successful in arbitrary repeated applications.
I recommend reading the introduction for philosophers, by the way.
- igorkraw 4y agoIf I remember the setup correctly, my reasoning is that two boxing is rational,anti-coercive and implementable, while one boxing requires accepting some magical predictor and also opens up the door for a bunch of "arguments" that boil down to magic (violation of causality, or "trust this black box predictor" bro). "Fuck you, I'll not play your game and take 1000" seems like a robust heuristic given a finite time on earth and a lot more charlatans trying to fool you than reliable predictors around