cousin_it comments on Prisoner's Dilemma Tournament Results - Less Wrong

101 Post author: prase 06 September 2011 12:46AM

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

Comments (170)

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

Comment author: cousin_it 06 September 2011 08:25:16AM *  12 points [-]

if you run out of time the round is negated (both players score 0 points).

This makes the game matrix bigger for no reason. Maybe replace this with "if you run out of time, you automatically defect"?

There is a standard function for spending X instructions evaluating a piece of quoted code, and if the evaled code tries to eval code, it asks the outer eval-ing function whether it should simulate faithfully or return a particular value.

Haha, this incentivizes players to reimplement eval themselves and avoid your broken one! One way to keep eval as a built-in would be to make code an opaque blob that can be analyzed only by functions like eval. I suggested this version a while ago :-)

Comment author: philh 06 September 2011 12:08:35PM 1 point [-]

I may be misreading, but I don't see how Eliezer's eval is broken. It can choose between a faithful evaluation and one in which inner calls to eval are replaced with a given value. That's more powerful than standard.

Comment author: DavidLS 06 September 2011 12:32:45PM 10 points [-]

If you build your own eval, and it returns a different result than the built in eval, you would know you're being simulated

Comment author: abramdemski 14 September 2012 06:10:24PM 0 points [-]

This makes the game matrix bigger for no reason. Maybe replace this with "if you run out of time, you automatically defect"?

Slightly better: allow the program to set the output at any time during execution (so it can set its own time-out value before trying expensive operations).