= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Karl comments on Robust Cooperation in the Prisoner's Dilemma - 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 (145)
TrollDetector is not a modal agent.
hm. I'm still a bit shaky on the definition of modal agent...does the following qualify?
IF(opponentcooperates with me AND I defect is a possible outcome){defect} else{ if (opponent cooperates IFF i cooperate) (cooperate){else defect}
(edit: my comment about perfect unfair bots may have been based on the wrong generalizations from an infinite-case). addendum: if what I've got doesn't qualify as a model agent I'll shut up until I understand enough to inspect the proof directly.
addendum 2: well. alright then I'll shut up.
What do you even mean by "is a possible outcome" here? Do you mean that there is no proof in PA of the negation of the proposition?
The formula of a modal agent must be fully modalized, which means that all propositions containing references to actions of agents within the formula must be within the scope of a provability operator.