From: Joscha Bach To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Decision making Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:44:19 +0000 So you are suggesting that probabilities are not the best way to frame decision making? (We can overcome things like independence, at the cost of sufficiently complex models, and in a world without repetition = some kind of regularity, all bets are off, but of course probabilistic models might still be impractical in practice.) What would be a better framework? Am 26.08.2015 um 16:39 schrieb jeffrey E. <[email protected]>: probablities vs similiarities. I suggest you take care with the concept of probabilites which really requires repetition, symmetry, and independence. On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Joscha Bach <[email protected]> wrote: I. Does luck mean gambling, or getting the probabilities right by intuition? 2. What else tells you anything about the future? (The past also tells us how much is does not tell us about the future) Am 26.08.2015 um 16:23 schrieb jeffrey E. <[email protected]>: luck plays a role. 2, looking back ( bayesian ) might not tell you anthing about the future. On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Joscha Bach < > wrote: Re motivation: Have you seen the recent movie "Ex Machina"? I liked it; one of the few Al movies that have not been dumbed down. The main character is a beautiful female looking Al, clearly intelligent, and able to manipulate humans to an arbitrary degree. What makes her inhuman is that she is probably motivated by a single principle, like option maximization. That would make her an inscrutable psychopath. Option maximization would entail energy, physical integrity, perhaps reproduction, certainly learning, but you will have an agent that you won't like to share a prisoner's dilemma with. How do you approach decision making? I have recently learned that people that subscribe for Cryonics (freezing one's head or body in the hope to be revived when future technologies