User Profile


Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
All Posts
personIncludes personal and meta blogposts (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

[Link] The law of effect, randomization and Newcomb’s problem

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Are causal decision theorists trying to outsmart conditional probabilities?

2 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Publication on formalizing preference utilitarianism in physical world models

1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Two-boxing, smoking and chewing gum in Medical Newcomb problems

1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Request for feedback on a paper about (machine) ethics

1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Naturalized induction – a challenge for evidential and causal decision theory

6 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

[Link] A survey of polls on Newcomb’s problem

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Recent Comments

I list some relevant discussions of the "anvil problem" etc. [here]( In particular, [Soares and Fallenstein (2014)]( seem to have implemented an environment in which...(read more)

For this round I submit the following entries on decision theory:

[Robust Program Equilibrium]( (paper)

_[The law of effect, randomization and Newcomb’s problem]( more)

(RobbBB seems to refer to what philosophers call the B-theory of time, whereas CronoDAS seems to refer to the A-theory of time.)

I tried to run this with racket and #lang scheme (as well as #lang racket) but didn't get it to work (though I didn't try for very long), perhaps because of backward compatibility issues. This is a bit unfortunate because it makes it harder for people interested in this topic to profit from the resu...(read more)

I wonder what people here think about the resolution proposed by Schwarz (2014). His analysis is that the divergence from the optimal policy also goes away if one combines EDT with the halfer position a.k.a. the self-sampling assumption, which, as shown by Briggs (2010), appears to be the right anth...(read more)

I think this is a good overview, but most of the views proposed here seem contentious and the arguments given in support shouldn't suffice to change the mind of anyone who has thought about these questions for a bit or who is aware of the disagreements about them within the community. Getting alignm...(read more)

The issue with this example (and many similar ones) is that to decide between interventions on a variable X from the outside, EDT needs an additional node representing that outside intervention, whereas Pearl-CDT can simply do(X) without the need for an additional variable. If you do add these varia...(read more)

This advice is very similar to Part, 1, ch. 3; Part 3, ch. 5; Part 4, ch. 1, 6 in Dale Carnegie's classic How to Win Friends and Influence People.

Another classic on this topic by a community member is Brian Tomasik's Turn Discussions Into Blog Posts.

I looked at the version 2017-12-30 10:48:11Z. Overall, I think it's a nice, systematic overview. Below are some comments.

I should note that I'm not very expert on these things. This is also why the additional literature I mention is mostly weakly related stuff from FRI, the organization I work for...(read more)