Similarly, once you introduce a âreliable predictorâ, everything goes out the window and the money is the least of your concern. But granting the premise, fine, I One Box
Correct me if Iâm wrong, but doesnât the experiment just need a predictor who does better than random? The oracle could just just your good friend who knows your tendencies better than random, as long as box bâs payout is high enough.
I think the crux is how the oracle makes predictions? (Assuming itâs sufficiently better than random; if itâs 50.01% accurate and the difference between the boxes is a factor of 1000 then of course you should just 2-box.) For example, if it just reads your DNA and predicts based on that, you should 1-box evidentially or 2-box causally. If it simulates you such that whichever choice you make, it would probably predict that you would make that choice, then you should 1-box. Itâs not obvious without more detail how âyour good friendâ makes their prediction.
Correct me if Iâm wrong, but doesnât the experiment just need a predictor who does better than random? The oracle could just just your good friend who knows your tendencies better than random, as long as box bâs payout is high enough.
I think the crux is how the oracle makes predictions? (Assuming itâs sufficiently better than random; if itâs 50.01% accurate and the difference between the boxes is a factor of 1000 then of course you should just 2-box.) For example, if it just reads your DNA and predicts based on that, you should 1-box evidentially or 2-box causally. If it simulates you such that whichever choice you make, it would probably predict that you would make that choice, then you should 1-box. Itâs not obvious without more detail how âyour good friendâ makes their prediction.