Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Olle Häggström 25. sij
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Magnus Borgh 🇪🇺🇬🇧🇸🇪 26. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @OHaggstrom
Amazingly, this is the first time I have encountered Newcomb’s Paradox. Is there a succinct way of explaining why it is an interesting problem? I understand it’s formulation, but fail, as yet, to see the significance beyond illustrating importance of hidden assumptions.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Olle Häggström
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se" More
Magnus Borgh 🇪🇺🇬🇧🇸🇪 26. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @OHaggstrom
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Olle Häggström 26. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @SpinVector
The introductory chapter to this book does roughly what you ask for: (Note, however, that there is reasonable room for disagreement of whether or not NP actually IS interesting and useful.)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"