= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
BloodyShrimp comments on Prisoner's dilemma tournament results - 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 (122)
I think that kind of deviation was probably a large part of the motivation for those who submitted random-playing bots, since the contest rules specified one round.
I haven't looked too closely at K, nor ran any tests, but I have a slight suspicion it sometimes cooperated in simulation, despite always defecting on its turn.
As for the cooperatebots, there were multiple reasons I didn't write N to exploit them, but not source complexity--they don't even do anything besides cooperate; the middle term is just the function's argument list.
True. I'm not saying that the random people did a poor job of selecting strategies, but Error was depressed that random behavior dominated. My and LukeASomers's points appears to be that the amount randomness dominates by, if it is dominant, would be easier to determine with more rounds.
I checked the behavior of all the bots that cooperated with K, and all but two (T and Q) would have always cooperated with a defectBot. Specifically the defect bot:
Sometimes they cooperated for different reasons. For example, U cooperates with K because it has "quine" in the code, while it cooperates with defectBot because it doesn't have "quine", "eval", or "thread" in it.
Q, of course, acts randomly. T is the only one that doesn't cooperate with defectBot but was tricked by K into cooperating. Though I'm having trouble figuring out why because I'm not sure what T is doing.
Anyway, it looks like K is reasonable proxy for how defectBot would have done here.
T was supposed to do a bit more than it did, but it had some portability bugs so I hastily lobotomized it. All it's supposed to do now is simulate the opponent twice against an obfuscated defectbot, defect if it cooperates both times, otherwise play mimicbot. I didn't have the time to add some of the obvious safeguards. I'm not sure if K is exploiting me or just got lucky, but at a glance, what it might be doing is checking whether the passed-in bot can generate a perfect quine of itself, and cooperating only then. That would be pretty ingenious, since typically a quine chain will go "original -- functional copy -- identical copy -- identical copy", etc.
You're right. K is a MimicBot with an additional check for proper quining. I primarily intended it to cause defection against CooperateBots, RandomBots, and others that don't simulate their opponents meaningfully. I expected a lot more MimicBot variants and mutual cooperations...