I wonder what percentage of self-proclaimed one-boxers are actually one-boxers at heart, as opposed to merely trying to trick future superintelligent Newcomb organizers.
Your question is impossible to do justice within a single tweet, but the NP touches on thorny issues in, e.g., rationality, the fundamentals of decision theory, causality, artificial intelligence and whether we might possibly be living in a computer simulation.
-
-
Fair enough, I was afraid so. Is there somewhere (preferably easily accessible, e.g. online) where I can get an overview explanation? I read the Wikipedia entry, but that didn’t really explain *why* NP is interesting for any of those things, how NP might tell us something useful.
-
The introductory chapter to this book does roughly what you ask for: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/newcombs-problem/54870C03D3F8544261A7D9781D271F85 … (Note, however, that there is reasonable room for disagreement of whether or not NP actually IS interesting and useful.)
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.