DanArmak comments on Holden's Objection 1: Friendliness is dangerous - Less Wrong

11 Post author: PhilGoetz 18 May 2012 12:48AM

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

Comments (428)

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

Comment author: gRR 26 May 2012 08:25:46PM 0 points [-]

You're treating resources as one single kind, where really there are many kinds with possible trades between teams

I think this is reasonably realistic. Let R signify money. Then R can buy other necessary resources.

But my point was exactly that there would be many teams who could form many different alliances. Assuming only two is unrealistic and just ignores what I was saying.

We can model N teams by letting them play two-player games in succession. For example, any two teams with nearly matched resources would cooperate with each other, producing a single combined team, etc... This may be an interesting problem to solve, analytically or by computer modeling.

You still haven't given good evidence for holding this position regarding the relation between the different Uxxx utilities.

You're right. Initially, I thought that the actual values of Uxxx-s will not be important for the decision, as long as their relative preference order is as stated. But this turned out to be incorrect. There are regions of cooperation and defection.

Comment author: DanArmak 27 May 2012 08:24:16AM 1 point [-]

Analytically, I don't a priori expect a succession of two-player games to have the same result as one many-player game which also has duration in time and not just a single round.