6 ms·
Stupid question: what about defining "lying" as "saying something that, if accepted, moves the believer away from the liar's worldmodel"? (Which I think matches
by SilasX 2y ago
Stupid question: what about defining "lying" as "saying something that, if accepted, moves the believer away from the liar's worldmodel"? (Which I think matches general intuition.)
Then you do get information once you know someone always lies (and has a correct worldmodel) because you know to update the opposite direction. I don't know the impact on these puzzles.
- Terr_ 2y ago> what about defining "lying" as "saying something that, if accepted, moves the believer away from the liar's worldmodel"? Then the definition becomes kinda-contradictory: The entity would sometimes tell the truth, because that would be the best choice to divert and ruin your model. So "always lies in a simple way" would become more like "always unhelpful in a superintelligently evil way."
- schoen 2y agoIn some contexts in computer science and computer security, this is also called "answering adversarially".
- SilasX 2y agoThat wouldn’t make it contradictory, it would make “always lying” just as effective a strategy as in the original problem statements. It’s a general problem that “being known to always lie” makes (the goals of) deception harder, and my definition just preserves that problem.