TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

A solution to Newcomb's paradox

26 点作者 erwald超过 3 年前

12 条评论

JoshTriplett超过 3 年前
This doesn&#x27;t seem like an actual solution to the problem as normally stated. The point of Newcomb&#x27;s problem is that if someone makes decisions on the basis of accurate prediction of your choices, you should commit to making the choice that gives you the maximum payout.<p>In other words, the problem <i>as stated</i> is that if you choose both boxes there will be nothing in the opaque box, and if you choose one box there will be a large payout in the opaque box.<p>Redefining the problem to say &quot;they&#x27;ve already made the decision and filled the box or boxes, so your choice won&#x27;t change the outcome&quot; is sidestepping the point of the problem.
评论 #28590060 未加载
georgewsinger超过 3 年前
If you enjoyed this essay, you might also enjoy the author&#x27;s fuller book <i>Paradox Lost: Logical Solutions to Ten Puzzles of Philosophy</i>, which covers 9 additional famous logical puzzles and offers solutions to them: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Paradox-Lost-Logical-Solutions-Philosophy&#x2F;dp&#x2F;3319904892" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Paradox-Lost-Logical-Solutions-Philos...</a><p>I personally wasn&#x27;t convinced by <i>every</i> paradox solution offered in this book, but a few of the solutions were truly stunning, and left me with the feeling that some famous philosophical paradox had been completely and unambiguously resolved (esp. in the first chapter).<p>(I love shilling for Michael Huemer [author of this book&#x2F;blog] because his philosophical books &amp; essays have been extremely influential&#x2F;clarifying in my own thinking).
drdec超过 3 年前
What we learned from that article is that Michael Huemer will only be winning $1000 if he is ever lucky enough to play this game.<p>The key to one-boxing is to commit to it early and don&#x27;t waver when the time comes.
评论 #28589764 未加载
vlovich123超过 3 年前
The thought experiment part aside, isn’t the premise a logical contradiction? You may choose to flip a coin about your choice and therefore the machine cannot possibly have a 90% accurate prediction of your guess.
评论 #28590251 未加载
评论 #28589691 未加载
评论 #28589966 未加载
评论 #28589317 未加载
vehemenz超过 3 年前
The original scenario as imagined by Nozick implies the probability is much higher than 90%, something close to 1. And you can&#x27;t &quot;outsmart&quot; the machine. This actually makes a big difference when trying to &quot;solve&quot; the paradox, as this author attempts to do.<p>Also, why you should 1 box: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Tzi3PCi0WBU" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Tzi3PCi0WBU</a>
planetsprite超过 3 年前
The solution is to misunderstand Newcomb&#x27;s paradox and make yourself think that it&#x27;s best to take 1 box, decide to take 1 box no matter what, have the machine evaluate your future decision, then read this article and then change your mind and take 2 boxes.
评论 #28589326 未加载
daxfohl超过 3 年前
It depends. Need to know the algorithm.<p>If it&#x27;s just that 90% of people choose one, then it can choose that one and be right 90% of the time without even taking your brain scan into account. Or maybe 90% of males go one way and 90% of females go the other way, well that&#x27;s an easy thing. Or maybe nobody ever chooses one when it&#x27;s raining, and there&#x27;s a 10% chance of rain tomorrow. Or, maybe it does a perfect simulation and knows exactly what you&#x27;ll choose, but flips it 10% of the time just for fun.<p>Any of those would have different ways of optimizing, so it doesn&#x27;t make sense to speculate without knowing exactly how it works.
评论 #28610683 未加载
sega_sai超过 3 年前
I don&#x27;t agree with this calculation. Under the assumption that 1) you think about what to do then 2) you decide which decision to make then 3) the computer learns about it and provides it to organizers with 90% precision then I am pretty sure the the correct answer is what is provided as &#x27;first answer&#x27; in the article. (assuming what we care about is expectation). And I think even if our strategy is probabilistic between box B and A+B the box then still chosing B box with 100% is the best stategy.
civilized超过 3 年前
Ok, so now what if the machine is 100% accurate?
评论 #28589790 未加载
mef超过 3 年前
after reading the article, I don&#x27;t understand why 2-boxing is correct but I&#x27;m intrigued to know if anyone else does
评论 #28589104 未加载
reactspa超过 3 年前
Fans of Taleb who are reading this: please share what you think would be the &quot;ergodicity-rational&quot; choice here, and why? (after all, Thales wouldn&#x27;t have bothered with analysis-schmalysis). I can&#x27;t share my view (yet) because I&#x27;m still not sure I understand the problem properly.
评论 #28590548 未加载
评论 #28589993 未加载
gatronicus超过 3 年前
Do not talk about the basilisk.