= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
hankx7787 comments on When is Winning not Winning? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (60)
That's not really a good answer, so I down voted.
The right game for you will be dependant on your utility function, no?
Not just, else we say that defectors in PD are winning.
defect-defect is not a win by anyone's utility function. What are you getting at?
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.)
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.
Fair enough. It is the correct-but-nonuseful lazy answer.