Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9035-9039
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 11:08 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 11/28/23 08:56, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > > Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-11-27 11:38]: > >> Consider a referendum on an AI 3 proposal A. Also consider a Rule X, > >> power 2: "If it is greater than 1, The AI of the referendum on proposal > >> A is immediately set to 1." > >> > >> Rule X and Rule 1950 are now both attempting to continuously set the AI > >> of the decision to different values, and this isn't a conflict per se so > >> precedence rules don't apply. So it isn't clear what value should be > >> used, and it might even try to revert to the default. This proposal > >> prevents that by preventing the power 2 rule from setting it to a value > >> such that it has to be automatically corrected. > > Why is it not a conflict? When evaluating the effects of the rules, > > two different rules give two different actions for the same entity. It's > > clearly in conflict, as both actions cannot be done simultaneously. > > > > > > They're not being done simultaneously. The two rules never apply at the > same time, they just infinitely react to each other. > > This is *not* one rule saying "AI is 3" while the other is saying "AI is > 2", which can be resolved using normal precedence rules. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > On a holistic level, I think this is a conflict between rules. On an atomic level, this is a supertask. An infinite amount of untracked switch flips occur in a finite amount of time, that time period is decided by the assessor when attempting to resolve such a decision. A supertask results in an indeterminate value, which is similar to other indeterminate values EG in questions of ownership such as the radiance stone or other ships of theseus. The other supertask is when the promotor has to report the adoption index, and this is also an infinite number of tasks in a finite amount of time: the ending time being when the promotor publishes eir report. I think it can be resolved by CFJ as not a paradox, because it's not a logical paradox, just another normal Agoran question of indeterminancy. -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9035-9039
On 11/28/23 08:56, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-11-27 11:38]: >> Consider a referendum on an AI 3 proposal A. Also consider a Rule X, >> power 2: "If it is greater than 1, The AI of the referendum on proposal >> A is immediately set to 1." >> >> Rule X and Rule 1950 are now both attempting to continuously set the AI >> of the decision to different values, and this isn't a conflict per se so >> precedence rules don't apply. So it isn't clear what value should be >> used, and it might even try to revert to the default. This proposal >> prevents that by preventing the power 2 rule from setting it to a value >> such that it has to be automatically corrected. > Why is it not a conflict? When evaluating the effects of the rules, > two different rules give two different actions for the same entity. It's > clearly in conflict, as both actions cannot be done simultaneously. > > They're not being done simultaneously. The two rules never apply at the same time, they just infinitely react to each other. This is *not* one rule saying "AI is 3" while the other is saying "AI is 2", which can be resolved using normal precedence rules. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9035-9039
Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-11-27 11:38]: > Consider a referendum on an AI 3 proposal A. Also consider a Rule X, > power 2: "If it is greater than 1, The AI of the referendum on proposal > A is immediately set to 1." > > Rule X and Rule 1950 are now both attempting to continuously set the AI > of the decision to different values, and this isn't a conflict per se so > precedence rules don't apply. So it isn't clear what value should be > used, and it might even try to revert to the default. This proposal > prevents that by preventing the power 2 rule from setting it to a value > such that it has to be automatically corrected. Why is it not a conflict? When evaluating the effects of the rules, two different rules give two different actions for the same entity. It's clearly in conflict, as both actions cannot be done simultaneously. -- juan
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9035-9039
…wait, that went to BUS in the first place; I swear I forgot to change the To line. Weird. Gaelan > On Nov 27, 2023, at 10:41 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > TTttPF (we’re back, baby) > >> On Nov 26, 2023, at 10:52 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-business >> wrote: >> >> I vote as follows: >> >> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 4:50 PM secretsnail9 via agora-official < >> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> >>> If you vote on a proposal, please edit this spreadsheet with your votes: >>> >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F39OHtBlZlQ8XVccqKCFtP-DPuHz4wPnujxbxkCN3LI/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> >>> ID Author(s) AITitle >>> --- >>> 9035~ snail, 4st 2.0 Unbreaking Motions >>> >> FOR >> >> >>> 9036* Janet, ais523 3.0 AI security revisted >>> >> Endorse Janet >> >> >>> 9037~ Murphy 2.0 Uncrossed arms >>> >> FOR >> >> >>> 9038~ Murphy 1.0 Ratify the Ruleset Week >>> >> FOR >> >> >>> 9039~ juan1.0 Well, worth a shot >>> >> AGAINST (just win the normal way) >> >> -- >> snail >
