Have 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.)
Pascal's mugging - Wikipedia

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

@mcc You know, I already knew Roko's Basilisk was stupid, but for some reason it never occurred to me before now that it's just self-proclaimed rationalists reinventing God and Hell the hard way.
@jwisser @mcc it's the rapture for people who think computers are easier to believe in than old men, yes