= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Houshalter comments on Open Thread: June 2010 - 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 (651)
How does that work? I suppose it makes sense a little considering that the world has to go on and can't stop because everyones on the ground being "happy", but it wouldn't mean that people wouldn't do it, or even that it wouldn't be the "rational" thing to do.
Is everyone missing the obvious subtext in the original article - that we already live in just such a world but the button is located not on the forehead but in the crotch?
But you can touch that button yourself...
How does that compare to when someone else touches your button with their button?
I've never done that, so I don't know.
I see that subtext, but I also see a subtext of geeks blaming the obvious irrationality of everyone else for them not getting any, like, it's just poking a button, right?
Except that sex, unlike the button in the story, doesn't always make people happy. Sometimes, for some people, it comes with complications that decrease net utility. (Also, it is possible to push your own button with sex.)
Sure, but it's not my comparison - I'm just saying it appears to be the obvious subtext of the original article.
But two poor, "lonely" people could just get together and push each others buttons. Thats the problem with this, any two people that can cooperate with each other can get the advantage. There was once an expiriment to evolve different programs in a genetic algorithm that could play the prisoners dilema. I'm not sure exactly how it was organized, which would really make or break different strategies, but the result was a program which always cooperated except when the other wasn't and it continued refusing to cooperate with the other untill it believed they were "even".
Are you thinking of tit for tat?
I'm not trying to argue for or against the comparison. Would you agree that the subtext exists in the original article or do you think I'm over-interpreting?
No, the subtext is definitely there in the original article. At least, I saw it immediately, as did most of the commenters:
I think the best analogy would be drugs, but those have bad things associated with them that the button example doesn't. They take up money, they cause health problems, etc.
That would not model the True Prisoner's Dilemma.
What's that got to do with the price of eggs?