Manfred comments on Hazing as Counterfactual Mugging? - Less Wrong

3 Post author: SilasBarta 11 October 2010 02:17PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (7)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Manfred 14 October 2010 10:38:23PM 0 points [-]

And now it's Parfit's hitchhiker! :D

Except instead of having psychic powers and only accepting people who intend to pay, now the driver accepts everyone and is a mute.

Hm, so perhaps hazing isn't quite like this asymmetric PD, since the current generation cannot give anything back to the older generation. But still, it's interesting to talk about, so:

Would the second player cooperate even if the first player defected, since that's what they would do if they'd precommitted?

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 15 October 2010 09:43:51AM 0 points [-]

Would the second player cooperate even if the first player defected, since that's what they would do if they'd precommitted?

If the first player is even a cooperating rock, the second player should defect. The argument only applies to a "sufficiently similar" TDT agent as the first player, which won't defect, hence your new problem statement doesn't satisfy that condition.

Comment author: Manfred 15 October 2010 11:19:43AM 0 points [-]

Oh, okay. I hadn't fully understood how restricted the range of "cooperate" was by the lack of information about the other player.