"Verbal arguments for one-boxing are easy to come by, what's hard is developing a good decision theory that one-boxes"
First, the problem needs a couple ambiguities resolved, so we'll use three assumptions:
A) You are making this decision based on a deterministic, rational philosophy (no randomization, external factors, etc. can be used to make your decision on the box)
B) Omega is in fact infallible
C) Getting more money is the goal (i.e. we are excluding decision-makers which would prefer to get less money, and other such absurdities)
Changing any of these results in a different game (either one that depends on how Omega handles random strategies, or one which depends on how often Omega is wrong... (read 487 more words →)
"Verbal arguments for one-boxing are easy to come by, what's hard is developing a good decision theory that one-boxes"
First, the problem needs a couple ambiguities resolved, so we'll use three assumptions: A) You are making this decision based on a deterministic, rational philosophy (no randomization, external factors, etc. can be used to make your decision on the box) B) Omega is in fact infallible C) Getting more money is the goal (i.e. we are excluding decision-makers which would prefer to get less money, and other such absurdities)
Changing any of these results in a different game (either one that depends on how Omega handles random strategies, or one which depends on how often Omega is wrong... (read 487 more words →)