An implementation of modal UDT post by Benja Fallenstein 705 days ago | Jessica Taylor, Luke Muehlhauser, Nate Soares and Patrick LaVictoire like this | discuss One of the great advantages of working with Gödel-Löb provability logic is that it’s possible to implement an evaluator which efficiently checks whether a sentence in the language of GL is true. Mihaly and Marcello used this to write a program that checks whether two modal agents cooperate or defect against each other. Today, Nate and I extended this with an implementation of modal UDT, which allows us to check what UDT does on different decision problems—see Program.hs in the Github repository. No guarantees for correctness, since this was written rather quickly; if anybody is able to take the time to check the code, that would be very much appreciated! The implementation of UDT is rather pleasing, I think. Here’s the informal definition of modal UDT, using PA + $$\ell$$: For every possible outcome $$j$$, from best to worst: For every possible action $$i$$, in order: If it’s provable in PA + $$\ell$$ that “UDT takes action $$i$$” implies “the universe returns outcome $$j$$”, then take action $$i$$. If you’re still here, return a default action. Here is the corresponding Haskell code: udt :: (Enum a,Ord b,Show b,Enum b) => Int -> ModalProgram b a -> b -> ModalProgram b b udt level univ dflt = modalProgram dflt $mFor$ \a -> mFor \$ \b -> mIf (boxk level (Var b %> univ a)) (mReturn b) Being able to write modal UDT like this makes it very easy to implement and try small variations on the code. We used this code to check what modal UDT would do in a version of Newcomb’s problem where Omega uses proofs in PA (rather than simulations) to decide whether to put the money in the box; that is, it will put a million dollars in the first box if and only if it can prove that you will one-box. If our code is correct, it turns out that in this case, modal UDT will do whatever its default action was. Earlier, we thought we had proved a different result on the whiteboard, but after the code disagreed with us, we went over it again and found a bug in our proof. After fixing that bug, we now have a manual proof that UDT will end up taking its default action in this scenario (which I’ll write about some other time). So looks like this can be a useful tool for figuring out this sort of thing!

### RECENT COMMENTS

I agree that the epistemic
 by Tsvi Benson-Tilsen on Open problem: thin logical priors | 0 likes

A very similar idea is
 by Paul Christiano on Online Learning 1: Bias-detecting online learners | 0 likes

I think the fact that traders
 by Paul Christiano on Open problem: thin logical priors | 1 like

Prior to working more on
 by Paul Christiano on Updatelessness and Son of X | 0 likes

It seems quite challenging to
 by Vadim Kosoy on Towards learning incomplete models using inner pre... | 0 likes

> I see minimally
 by Paul Christiano on My current take on the Paul-MIRI disagreement on a... | 0 likes

> If such a recipe existed
 by Paul Christiano on My current take on the Paul-MIRI disagreement on a... | 0 likes

> My current estimate is that
 by Paul Christiano on Towards learning incomplete models using inner pre... | 0 likes

Regarding exploration, I
 by Vadim Kosoy on Towards learning incomplete models using inner pre... | 0 likes

If an AI causes its human
 by Wei Dai on My current take on the Paul-MIRI disagreement on a... | 0 likes

This result features in the
 by Ryan Carey on In memoryless Cartesian environments, every UDT po... | 0 likes

Cool! It seems to me that
 by Paul Christiano on Towards learning incomplete models using inner pre... | 0 likes

I see what you're arguing.
 by Jessica Taylor on Pursuing convergent instrumental subgoals on the u... | 0 likes

It's just meant to be a
 by Jessica Taylor on My current take on the Paul-MIRI disagreement on a... | 0 likes

Thanks, I think I understand
 by David Krueger on My current take on the Paul-MIRI disagreement on a... | 0 likes

### RSS

Privacy & Terms (NEW 04/01/15)