Showing 1–2 of 2 results for author: Benford, G
-
What does Newcomb's paradox teach us?
Authors:
David H. Wolpert,
Gregory Benford
Abstract:
In Newcomb's paradox you choose to receive either the contents of a particular closed box, or the contents of both that closed box and another one. Before you choose, a prediction algorithm deduces your choice, and fills the two boxes based on that deduction. Newcomb's paradox is that game theory appears to provide two conflicting recommendations for what choice you should make in this scenario. W…
▽ More
In Newcomb's paradox you choose to receive either the contents of a particular closed box, or the contents of both that closed box and another one. Before you choose, a prediction algorithm deduces your choice, and fills the two boxes based on that deduction. Newcomb's paradox is that game theory appears to provide two conflicting recommendations for what choice you should make in this scenario. We analyze Newcomb's paradox using a recent extension of game theory in which the players set conditional probability distributions in a Bayes net. We show that the two game theory recommendations in Newcomb's scenario have different presumptions for what Bayes net relates your choice and the algorithm's prediction. We resolve the paradox by proving that these two Bayes nets are incompatible. We also show that the accuracy of the algorithm's prediction, the focus of much previous work, is irrelevant. In addition we show that Newcomb's scenario only provides a contradiction between game theory's expected utility and dominance principles if one is sloppy in specifying the underlying Bayes net. We also show that Newcomb's paradox is time-reversal invariant; both the paradox and its resolution are unchanged if the algorithm makes its `prediction' after you make your choice rather than before.
△ Less
Submitted 5 March, 2010;
originally announced March 2010.
-
What does Newcomb's paradox teach us?
Authors:
David H. Wolpert Gregory Benford
Abstract:
In Newcomb's paradox you choose to receive either the contents of a particular closed box, or the contents of both that closed box and another one. Before you choose though, an antagonist uses a prediction algorithm to deduce your choice, and fills the two boxes based on that deduction. Newcomb's paradox is that game theory's expected utility and dominance principles appear to provide conflicting…
▽ More
In Newcomb's paradox you choose to receive either the contents of a particular closed box, or the contents of both that closed box and another one. Before you choose though, an antagonist uses a prediction algorithm to deduce your choice, and fills the two boxes based on that deduction. Newcomb's paradox is that game theory's expected utility and dominance principles appear to provide conflicting recommendations for what you should choose. A recent extension of game theory provides a powerful tool for resolving paradoxes concerning human choice, which formulates such paradoxes in terms of Bayes nets. Here we apply this to ol to Newcomb's scenario. We show that the conflicting recommendations in Newcomb's scenario use different Bayes nets to relate your choice and the algorithm's prediction. These two Bayes nets are incompatible. This resolves the paradox: the reason there appears to be two conflicting recommendations is that the specification of the underlying Bayes net is open to two, conflicting interpretations. We then show that the accuracy of the prediction algorithm in Newcomb's paradox, the focus of much previous work, is irrelevant. We similarly show that the utility functions of you and the antagonist are irrelevant. We end by showing that Newcomb's paradox is time-reversal invariant; both the paradox and its resolution are unchanged if the algorithm makes its `prediction' \emph{after} you make your choice rather than before.
△ Less
Submitted 30 September, 2010; v1 submitted 16 April, 2009;
originally announced April 2009.
