= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on Timeless Decision Theory: Problems I Can't Solve - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (153)
After looking at this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/vp/worse_than_random/
...I figure Yudkowsky will not be able to swallow this first sentence - without indigestion.
In this case, I can only conclude that you haven't read thoroughly enough.
I think EY's restriction to "cryptographic adversaries" is needlessly specific; any adversary (or other player) will do.
Of course, this is still not really relevant to the original point, as, well, when is there reason to play a mixed strategy in Prisoner's Dilemma?
Even if your strategy is (1,0) or (0,1) on (C,D), isn't that a probability distribution? It might not be valuable to express it that way for this instance, but you do get the benefits that if you ever do want a random strategy you just change your numbers around instead of having to develop a framework to deal with it.
The rule in question is concerned with improving on randomness. It may be tricky to improve on randomness by very much if, say, you face a highly-intelligent opponent playing the matching pennies game. However, it is usually fairly simple to equal it - even when facing a smarter, crpytography-savvy opponent - just use a secure RNG with a reasonably secure seed.