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.

SilentCal comments on Agent-Simulates-Predictor Variant of the Prisoner's Dilemma - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Gram_Stone 15 December 2015 07:17AM

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

Comments (31)

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

Comment author: SilentCal 16 December 2015 07:28:05PM *  1 point [-]

The rock wins at chicken, for any model that accurately describes its behavior. One such model is as an agent with a game-appropriate utility function and zero intelligence. Therefore, an agent with a game-appropriate utility function and zero intelligence wins at chicken (in the case as constructed).

It proves that we can construct a game where the less intelligent player's lack of intelligence is an advantage. OP shows the same, but I find the rock example simpler and clearer--I especially find it illuminates the difficulties with trying to exploit the result.

Comment author: Dagon 17 December 2015 12:37:02AM -1 points [-]

The verb "to win" strongly implies preferences, not just behavior. A rock doesn't win at chicken, as it doesn't have a payout matrix that can define the utility values of outcomes.

Comment author: Tem42 16 December 2015 10:40:32PM 0 points [-]

I think it demonstrates something stronger -- we have, as humans, already developed a game (Chicken) with very meaningful outcomes in which lower intelligence is beneficial, despite the fact that the humans in questions were not intending to select for low IQ and would not have seen a rock as a valid player.

If we are talking about Chicken we do not have to assume a rock (which has no preference), but simply a human with bad judgement, or slow reactions, or who is panicking.

So,

I'm not sure what that proves.

Well, 'proof' aside, it demonstrates that:

stupidity can be an advantage

Among other apparently maladaptive responses.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 December 2015 08:18:46PM *  0 points [-]

It proves that we can construct a game where the less intelligent player's lack of intelligence is an advantage.

That's pretty trivial. Any time you do something to avoid unpleasantness (e.g. not jump off the roof of a tall building), you can frame it as a game where you lose and some feature of the environment cast as an unintelligent player (e.g. gravity) wins.