= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Slider comments on The Number Choosing Game: Against the existence of perfect theoretical rationality - 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 (151)
Define a "sucker" option to be a an option with a lower utility value than a some other possible choice.
A dominant decision is never a sucker option but a perfect agent migth end up choosing a sucker option. In the number naming game every option is a sucker option.
Thus "winning" is different from "not losing".
I would argue that a perfect agent can never choose a "sucker" option (edit:) and still be a perfect agent. It follows straight from my definition. Of course, if you use a different definition, you'll obtain a different result.
Thus why the dominant agent can't play the number naming game as it can't choose any of the options.