My therapist tells me I have a great relationship with my clone tyvm
When asked whom, of Croissanthology or Algon1, is most likely to cooperate with their clone, Claude Sonnet 4.5 answers:
Responses to Algon's reply that I've pondered writing up, reading his thing in a hangar in SF, unable to write in actual detail:
“Rationalists win"; “there probably is a correlation between claiming loudly that one is the type to coordination with oneself and being the type for real”; “believe people when they tell you they're unvirtuous"; “precommitments work when you believe in them”; “sometimes correct decisions are difficult to justify 'rationally’ except by pointing out that they lead to better outcomes”; “Claude Sonnet 4.5 is probably right about decision theory”; “not with THAT attitude"; “you have more power over yourself than you think, and the fact you don't think that is exactly why you're in this mess"; “some soldiers really DO throw themselves over grenades to save their comrades"; “virtuousness is not some kind of magical substance you're not allowed to admit is real because it'd be unhumble / give too much status to another human”; “it’s good to [plan to] be virtuous”; “there are more important things than personal life or death!”; “there's a difference between your observation of yourself and your observation of others, and similarly, there's a difference between your decisions for yourself and your recommended decisions to others"; “it's my life, I can sacrifice it for my ‘original’ if I want”; “I can predict myself better than you can"; “do you at least agree you'd do the same if you were playing D&D in my position?”; “have you—as I have—written up literal contracts in your private notes trading acausally with your future self to e.g. ensure they don't send a dragon after you in the ancestor simulation you're in?”; “do you—as I do—refer to each day in your life as a ‘self’ and to the amalgamation of selves that make you up as [name]kind? A microcivilization of selves whose cooperation and trades are explicit, written out, verbalized, legalized, enforced?”; “can you imagine taking a bullet for somebody? Do you dislike yourself so much that you wouldn't take a bullet for YOU?”; “are you so egotistic that you'd value your own existence over the smoother execution of your noble goals?”; “saying ‘no, you don't actually believe what you're saying, because you haven't experienced it’ is a lazy objection”; “you don't actually understand just how much you love those-you-protect, and YOUR far-mode mistake is assuming your future self won't be willing to sacrifice themself for YOU/for those you protect [through you], without evidence”; “this is isomorphic to Newcomb's problem, and in Newcomb's problem the correct decision is one-boxing"; “this problem could literally be solved if you just loved life/yourself/the-people-you-protect more, is more love BAD?? Should you be publicly broadcasting lack of sufficiently intense love on LessWrong dot com?”; “not cooperating with your clones is a cool flaw, and you don't get to have cool flaws”; “not cooperating with your clones is a luxury belief: if you woke up cloned tomorrow… would you still want to hold on to this belief?”; “I'm not in charge of your life, it's your prerogative to believe or not to believe you'd cooperate with yourself: oh well".
If you were to transport me and Algon into the wonderful universe of Mother of Learning, from whence this spell:
In the novel Mother of Learning, perhaps the most useful spell is simulacrum. It can be used to make an ectoplasmic shell that looks like you, has a copy of your mind and shares your mana pool. Naturally, the main characters abuse the heck out of this. So useful is it, that they wonder why on earth every great mage doesn’t use it. (Algon)
I'd absolutely mog him. I haven't even read the book, but now I know for sure I'd mog him.
Maybe Eliezer was right, and rationality is so dang overpowered that it lets your slight rational edge over a guy with 4 times your LW karma turn into an absolute mog in real-world conditions.