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.

Khoth comments on Open thread, July 21-27, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: polymathwannabe 21 July 2014 01:15PM

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

Comments (160)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: tetronian2 24 July 2014 02:10:53AM *  5 points [-]

Sometime in the near future, I will be running an iterated prisoner's dilemma tournament in which bots can access their opponents' source code, similar to the IPD tournament that was held last year. This tournament will be open to the Internet at large (i.e. not just LW) and will probably include some Hacker News folks and some folks from my real-life social network, who are primarily programmers and people in the finance world. Once everything is officially announced, there will be a large window (a month?) in which users can submit entries before the tournament is run. Also, to help out non-programmer participants, I will be translating some participants' pseudocode/descriptions of algorithms into code. More details on this later.

The (work in progress) code that will be used to run the tournament is here.

Right now everything is still in the preliminary stages, so I would appreciate:

  • comments about what made last year's tournament good/bad/etc.
  • suggestions for the rules and payoff matrix/feature requests to make the tournament more interesting
  • code review
  • general comments (i.e., yell at me)
Comment author: Khoth 24 July 2014 07:42:21AM 3 points [-]

The code in the github repo doesn't actually give bots access to each other's source, just the ability to run each other.

It's also lacking handling for bots that run forever.

Comment author: tetronian2 24 July 2014 09:14:22AM 0 points [-]

Thanks for the feedback. I agree on both points; I will probably change the wording to what you suggested.