AlexMennen comments on Prisoner's Dilemma (with visible source code) Tournament - Less Wrong

47 Post author: AlexMennen 07 June 2013 08:30AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (232)

Comments (232)

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

Comment author: Sniffnoy 27 June 2013 02:25:05AM 2 points [-]

There is no strong reason the "I have to count this as defection list" you use must be the same as what you actually use in your own code

Certainly true -- if it made it so that my program wouldn't cooperate with itself, that would be a problem, but here the "forbidden" stuff is hidden away an area my program would never actually analyze.

The problem is just that, if I need to use this, that suggests so will other people; and that means I'm probably going to be defecting in a lot of cases where I shouldn't.

(Assuming vaguely sane but bounded competitors) you want your code to be both as smart as possible (allowing more potential mutual cooperation opportunities) and as simple as possible (allowing agents as dumb as possible to see that they can cooperate with you). Ideally your agent would be far, far simpler to understand than what it is able to cooperate with but if you can't manage that it isn't a strict deal breaker.

Argh, I didn't even think about the "it should be simple to be visibly cooperating" bit. Trying to do static analysis on Scheme (with its conds and cases and quasiquotes) is enough to make my program complicated. Maybe I should just submit a MimicBot instead.

Btw, just in case anyone was thinking of doing such a thing after the declarations so far: If you do any redefining of syntax, I'm defecting on you.

Comment author: wedrifid 27 June 2013 05:38:02AM *  1 point [-]

Argh, I didn't even think about the "it should be simple to be visibly cooperating" bit. Trying to do static analysis on Scheme (with its conds and cases and quasiquotes) is enough to make my program complicated. Maybe I should just submit a MimicBot instead.

Does MimicBot run the opponent and then return the same result? If so then I suggest a timeout/defect feature. Any bot that fails against itself has problems!

Are there going to be CooperateBots in the competition? If that is a possibility then consider a simple tweak "If my opponent does not make use of its opponent variable then defect else Mimic". (Failing against unobfuscated CooperateBot is at least as embarrassing as failing against self.)

Btw, just in case anyone was thinking of doing such a thing after the declarations so far: If you do any redefining of syntax, I'm defecting on you.

Anyone who tries that must and doesn't expect defection must seriously hold the opposition in contempt!

Comment author: Sniffnoy 28 June 2013 07:24:35PM 2 points [-]

Does MimicBot run the opponent and then return the same result? If so then I suggest a timeout/defect feature. Any bot that fails against itself has problems!

By MimicBot I mean the strategy given in this comment. It's not great, but it's better than not ever finishing.

Are there going to be CooperateBots in the competition? If that is a possibility then consider a simple tweak "If my opponent does not make use of its opponent variable then defect else Mimic". (Failing against unobfuscated CooperateBot is at least as embarrassing as failing against self.)

Hm, that's not a bad idea. My current program is essentially trying to measure to what extent their output depends on mine, but if I can't finish that in time, that's a simple tweak that can be added...

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit