= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
sark comments on Bloggingheads: Robert Wright and Eliezer Yudkowsky - 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 (127)
So 'noticing the fox' signals that the rabbit notices the fox and will run when it sees the fox beginning to chase. The fox uses the signal thus: "If the rabbit notices me it gets a headstart. With such a head start, and the fact that the rabbit runs at a certain minimum speed, I would not be able to catch it".
Even though the reliability of the signal is independent of the running, its effectiveness/usefulness depends on the rabbit's speed.
Once we have the free riding rabbits placing resources into noticing and away from running, foxes will realize this, and they will chase even when they have been noticed. So now noticing does not prevent the fox from chasing anymore, so there is less pressure on even fast rabbits to signal it.
And then the signaling collapses?
I admit to being quite confused over this. Waiting for someone to clear it all up!
Hypothesis: most rabbits which are in good enough shape to notice are also in good enough shape to escape.
There simply aren't enough old? sick? rabbits to freeload to make the system break down.
Anyone know whether inexperienced foxes chase noticing rabbits? If so, this make freeloading a risky enough strategy that it wouldn't be commonly used.
I expected the devil would be in the details! But yeah, your hypothesis sounds plausible, and freeloading seems risky.
That correlation can not (and need not) be counted on to make the equilibrium stable over a large number of generations.
Placing emphasis on 'noticing vs running' is just confusing you. Noticing helps the rabbit run just as much as it helps it look in the right direction.
No. Silas was just wrong. If average rabbit speed become slower then there will be a commensurate change in the threshold at which foxes chase rabbits even when they have been spotted. It will remain useful to show the fox that it has been spotted in all cases in which about 200ms of extra head start is worth sacrificing so that a chase may potentially be avoided.
If you are still confused, consider a situation in which rabbits and foxes always become aware of each other's presence at a distance of precisely 250m. Would anyone suggest that rabbits would freeload and not bother to be fast themselves in that circumstance? No. In the 'rabbits standing up' situation the rabbits will still want to be fast for precisely the same reason. All standing up does is force the mutually acknowledged awareness.
Sorry I wasn't being clear, previously I had always meant noticing=='showing the fox you have noticed it'.
What threshold? I'm guessing other factors such as the fox's independent assessment of the rabbit's speed?
I didnt consider the fact that signaling having noticed required that sacrifice. Does it affect the analysis?
I don't understand this part.
If the average rabbit becomes slower then the average fox will be more likely to estimate that a given rabbit chase is successful.
Not particularly. We haven't been quantising anyway and it reasonable to consider the overhead here negligible for our purposes. '
You don't particularly need to. Just observe that rabbits running fast to avoid foxes is a stable equilibrium. Further understand that nothing in this scenario changes the fact that running fast is a stable equilibrium. The whole 'signalling makes the equilibrium unstable' idea is a total red herring, a recipe for confusion.