= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Andreas_Giger comments on Voting is like donating thousands of dollars to charity - 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 (210)
In non-iterated PD, someone who cooperates is a cooperator.
No, the cooperators actually lose when playing each other, because they gain less than what they could, while the only reason they get anything at all is because they are playing against other cooperators. Likewise, the defectors win when playing other defectors, and they obviously win against cooperators. Cooperating could only win if it effected your opponent's decision, which is not the case in PD.
It seems your definition of winning is flawed in that you want your agents to achieve results that are clearly outside their influence. Rationalists should win under the constraints of reality, not invent scenarios in which they have already won.
As soon as you're talking about communities, you're talking about meta-PD, not PD, and as I've explained above, rationalist agents play meta-PD by making sure cooperation is desirable for the individuum as well, so they win. End of story.
Nitpick: Superrationality is not a decision theory.
Wikipedia is not a determinative source.
Which answer is the "superrational" one in Newcomb's problem? In a game of chicken? In an ultimatum game?
Decision theories like Causal Decision Theory and Evidential Decision theory have answers, and can explain why they reached those answers. As far as I am aware, there's no equivalent formalization of "superrationality." Until such a formalization exists, it is misleading in this type of discussion to call "superrationality" a decision theory.
And let the other guy win? Madness!