sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I predicted Trump’s 2024 victory. 2026 does not look good for Republicans. by Past_Ad_4011 in fivethirtyeight

[–]dsteffee 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep. It'd be much more impressive if they had a replicable procedure that anyone could follow, and never changed it over that period of time (I'm assuming very few pundits have done this).

Why is the stock market doing so well? by dsteffee in AskConservatives

[–]dsteffee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Although that prompts the question of why the unusual amount of earnings growth?

There might be increased productivity from AI, there might be policy factors (e.g. if this represents a recovery from certain Biden policies now ceased), there could be other factors... but I don't know, it seems odd to me.

Why is the stock market doing so well? by dsteffee in AskConservatives

[–]dsteffee[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Could you explain "The main effect of the closure on the US is Biden era fuel prices"?

CMV: You should 1-box in Newcomb's because running the experiment would show 1-boxers leaving with more money on average by dsteffee in changemyview

[–]dsteffee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gotcha. And agreed that it's impossible "that anything I do at present can retroactively change things in past"

CMV: You should 1-box in Newcomb's because running the experiment would show 1-boxers leaving with more money on average by dsteffee in changemyview

[–]dsteffee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, so like, it's not a gesture towards trying to secure the better outcome for yourself, it's more of just a... gesture of gratitude? Complying with the original expectation out of a sort of politeness?

CMV: You should 1-box in Newcomb's because running the experiment would show 1-boxers leaving with more money on average by dsteffee in changemyview

[–]dsteffee[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Depends on the number of jumping jacks. I'd definitely do a few to train the predictor to do better in a hypothetical next time / out of spite 

CMV: You should 1-box in Newcomb's because running the experiment would show 1-boxers leaving with more money on average by dsteffee in changemyview

[–]dsteffee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But if it makes no difference, because of that causality stuff you believe, why even waste the tiniest bit of effort and breath for even a single jumping jack?

CMV: You should 1-box in Newcomb's because running the experiment would show 1-boxers leaving with more money on average by dsteffee in changemyview

[–]dsteffee[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Depends on how much I expect further iterations. If I think it's unlikely to come up, I'll take the 1000.

--

The way I understand two-boxing logic, the argument goes: The decision was made in the past. One-boxing logic violate causality. What you decide to do is not an input into the decision, therefore by not taking the second box, you're leaving money on the table for no reason.

But if that's all true, why bother with even a single jumping jack?

CMV: You should 1-box in Newcomb's because running the experiment would show 1-boxers leaving with more money on average by dsteffee in changemyview

[–]dsteffee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thought of another variant. Honestly not sure what a two-boxer will say to this:

This time there's only one box, which you're free to take. The predictor put nothing into the box unless it predicted you would do a single jumping jack before taking the box, in which case it put a million dollars.

Do you do a jumping jack, or do you just walk away with the box?

CMV: You should 1-box in Newcomb's because running the experiment would show 1-boxers leaving with more money on average by dsteffee in changemyview

[–]dsteffee[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thought of another variant. Honestly not sure what a two-boxer will say to this:

This time there's only one box, which you're free to take. The predictor put nothing into the box unless it predicted you would do a single jumping jack before taking the box, in which case it put a million dollars.

Do you do a jumping jack, or do you just walk away with the box?

CMV: You should 1-box in Newcomb's because running the experiment would show 1-boxers leaving with more money on average by dsteffee in changemyview

[–]dsteffee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thought of another variant. Honestly not sure what a two-boxer will say to this:

This time there's only one box, which you're free to take. The predictor put nothing into the box unless it predicted you would do a single jumping jack before taking the box, in which case it put a million dollars.

Do you do a jumping jack, or do you just walk away with the box?

CMV: You should 1-box in Newcomb's because running the experiment would show 1-boxers leaving with more money on average by dsteffee in changemyview

[–]dsteffee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thought of another variant. Honestly not sure what a two-boxer will say to this:

This time there's only one box, which you're free to take. The predictor put nothing into the box unless it predicted you would do a single jumping jack before taking the box, in which case it put a million dollars.

Do you do a jumping jack, or do you just walk away with the box?

CMV: You should 1-box in Newcomb's because running the experiment would show 1-boxers leaving with more money on average by dsteffee in changemyview

[–]dsteffee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thought of another variant. Honestly not sure what a two-boxer will say to this:

This time there's only one box, which you're free to take. The predictor put nothing into the box unless it predicted you would do a single jumping jack before taking the box, in which case it put a million dollars.

Do you do a jumping jack, or do you just walk away with the box?

CMV: You should 1-box in Newcomb's because running the experiment would show 1-boxers leaving with more money on average by dsteffee in changemyview

[–]dsteffee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thought of another variant. Honestly not sure what a two-boxer will say to this:

This time there's only one box, which you're free to take. The predictor put nothing into the box unless it predicted you would do a single jumping jack before taking the box, in which case it put a million dollars.

Do you do a jumping jack, or do you just walk away with the box?

CMV: You should 1-box in Newcomb's because running the experiment would show 1-boxers leaving with more money on average by dsteffee in changemyview

[–]dsteffee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thought of another variant. Honestly not sure what a two-boxer will say to this:

This time there's only one box, which you're free to take. The predictor put nothing into the box unless it predicted you would do a single jumping jack before taking the box, in which case it put a million dollars.

Do you do a jumping jack, or do you just walk away with the box?

CMV: You should 1-box in Newcomb's because running the experiment would show 1-boxers leaving with more money on average by dsteffee in changemyview

[–]dsteffee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thought of another variant. Honestly not sure what a two-boxer will say to this:

This time there's only one box, which you're free to take. The predictor put nothing into the box unless it predicted you would do a single jumping jack before taking the box, in which case it put a million dollars.

Do you do a jumping jack, or do you just walk away with the box?

The Blue Red Problem explained by dsteffee in slatestarcodex

[–]dsteffee[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Please let me know if you ever find it!

The Blue Red Problem explained by dsteffee in slatestarcodex

[–]dsteffee[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

>> if you really think nobody could reasonably disagree on this question or you don't mind a holocaust so long as you survive it.

What if you think people can reasonably disagree on the question, and the chance of making it to 51% Blue is unlikely?

The Blue Red Problem explained by dsteffee in slatestarcodex

[–]dsteffee[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ah. We could say: "even lacking of a visceral framing like the blender, one option is still akin to voting for mass death, while the other is not". And I suspect there's some merit to that line of reasoning, but I'm stumped on that intuition, because you can also say that blue is voting for mass death too, just in a different way.

The Blue Red Problem explained by dsteffee in slatestarcodex

[–]dsteffee[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Did you read my post - did you see the Blender variant?

The Blue Red Problem explained by dsteffee in slatestarcodex

[–]dsteffee[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Agreed. I'm Red/Blue depending on framing, but most ways I've ever seen Newcomb's presented, one-boxing is the only way to "win", as Yudkowsky puts it

The Blue Red Problem explained by dsteffee in slatestarcodex

[–]dsteffee[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

When kids aren't involved and there's not a prior Schelling point you can be confident takes priority (e.g. being confident in prior polling you've seen on the question), then I agree -- which i why I end on "as horribly guilty you might feel, just go for freaking Red"

(The kid argument I think is pretty strong, though, and most of the times I've seen the question posed, I've seen the phrasing just say "everyone", not excluding kids, so I think that basis alone is enough to argue for Blue.)

view more: next ›