You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

nyan_sandwich comments on When is Winning not Winning? - Less Wrong Discussion

13 Post author: Eneasz 22 May 2012 04:25PM

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

Comments (60)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 May 2012 04:48:07PM 12 points [-]

"You win the game you are playing"

Play the right game.

Comment author: faul_sname 22 May 2012 04:51:09PM 3 points [-]

Which game is that?

Comment author: [deleted] 22 May 2012 04:53:37PM 9 points [-]

I don't know. That's your problem.

Comment author: faul_sname 22 May 2012 07:39:33PM 4 points [-]

It seems the OP thinks that the right game for the group as a whole and the right game for the individuals within that group are different. So if it's up to the individual which game to play, they will play the one that benefits them and the group will lose.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 May 2012 12:01:22AM 0 points [-]

Humans aren't purely selfish. If we all play our individual game, the group will do just fine. As evidenced by the fact that we are even talking about the group as if it matters.

Even with selfish agents, the best strategy is to cooperate under certain (our) conditions.

Comment author: billswift 23 May 2012 05:19:22AM 2 points [-]

In game theory, whether social or evolutionary, a stable outcome usually (I'm tempted to say almost always) includes some level of cheaters/defectors.

Comment author: hankx7787 22 May 2012 06:56:07PM 2 points [-]

That's not really a good answer, so I down voted.

Comment author: Dorikka 22 May 2012 08:11:27PM 4 points [-]

The right game for you will be dependant on your utility function, no?

Comment author: faul_sname 22 May 2012 11:11:25PM 0 points [-]

Not just, else we say that defectors in PD are winning.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 May 2012 12:03:28AM 1 point [-]

defect-defect is not a win by anyone's utility function. What are you getting at?

Comment author: Dorikka 22 May 2012 11:18:15PM 1 point [-]

I don't understand the relevance of your comment; could you explain? (Expected payout for all agents in PD increases if they can find a way to cooperate AFAIK, even if all are completely selfish.)

Comment author: faul_sname 22 May 2012 11:24:45PM 2 points [-]

Expected payout for one agent increases even more if they can convince everyone else to cooperate while they defect. This is the game you want to keep the other agents from playing, and while TDT works when all the other agents use a similar decision strategy, it fails in situations where they don't. Which is exactly the problem Eneasz was getting at.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 May 2012 12:04:50AM -1 points [-]

Fair enough. It is the correct-but-nonuseful lazy answer.