= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
fubarobfusco comments on Open thread, September 9-15, 2013 - 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 (126)
Over here I called the moves "Give" and "Take". We could rename Cooperatebot "Giver" and Defectbot "Taker" and skip the politics. It seems to me that putting political implications such as "trade" and "war" into the game would not make people think more clearly about it, but the opposite.
taking is fine but the entire point of trade is that it's the real life situation that matches cooperation a lot more closely than being in prison with some guy. It's the basis for economics. You don't just "give" you also get.
Hmm. In the Prisoner's Dilemma (Axelrod payoff matrix) —
Your actions control your opponent's score more than your own.
You can increase your opponent's score (by 4 or 3) by decreasing your own (by 1 or 2).
Given opponent C, my choice makes only 2 points of difference to my score, but 3 points of difference to the opponent's score. Given opponent D, my choice makes only 1 point of difference to my score, but 4 points of difference to the opponent's score.