mccHave you ever noticed how many canonical "paradoxes" just sort of evaporate if you decline to recognize Bayesian inference as a thing that works
Hmm so it looks like you started with some absurd priors and you were able to use them to prove some absurd conclusions. Now you're acting like this is a fundamental challenge to the idea of "rationality" and you've made a wikipedia page. Seems to me like you just selected some absurd priors. At absolute most what you've proven is that game theory kind of sucks
(This might be kind of vague so this is the kind of thing I'm talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging A shocking number of problems of this type that make me immediately respond with "why do you think this is a difficult problem?" seem to wind up mentioning Eliezer Yudkowsky when you look into why people are talking about them.)
INTERNET RATIONALIST: Consider the following thought experiment. Imagine a hyperintelligent artificial intelligence–
ME: No
INTERNET RATIONALIST: What
ME: I am declining to imagine the hyperintelligent artificial intelligence.
INTERNET RATIONALIST:
ME: I'm thinking about birds right now
INTERNET RATIONALIST:
ME: Dozens of crows, perched atop great standing stones
RAOF@mcc This is going to expose me as someone that's spent too much time looking at that stuff, but I particularly like the one that's “What if there was this magical superintelligence that leaves people with two boxes, one of which always contains $10 the other of which reliably, repeatedly, and observably contains either $1,000,000 if you don't open the first box but nothing if you do open the first box” and then has a huge convoluted philosophical argument trying to work out how to make “only open the box you know will contain $1,000,000” the “rational” choice.
Instead of the rather more obvious argument “this thing observably happens, therefore my assumption that it cannot is incorrect”.
Avram Grumer