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.

philh comments on Announcing the 2014 program equilibrium iterated PD tournament - Less Wrong Discussion

24 Post author: tetronian2 31 July 2014 12:24PM

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

Comments (61)

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

Comment author: philh 02 August 2014 10:27:31AM 1 point [-]

If you run out of time, you defect. If your opponent simulates you without a time limit, and you take long enough to cause ver to run out of time, ve'll defect, which isn't what you want.

But there's a function that lets you run a function for up to a specified number of microseconds, and tells you what it returns or whether it times out.

Comment author: brazil84 02 August 2014 09:04:13PM 2 points [-]

If you run out of time, you defect. If your opponent simulates you without a time limit, and you take long enough to cause [him] to run out of time, [he'll] defect, which isn't what you want.

I'm not sure about that - the original post says this:

the penalty for not outputting Cooperate or Defect within the time limit has been reduced.

So presumably most bots will be set up to make a choice within the time limit.

But there's a function that lets you run a function for up to a specified number of microseconds, and tells you what it returns or whether it times out.

Right, so the practical effect of the strategy I proposed would be to deny opponents knowledge. Of course, one can envision situations where you want to be transparent.