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.

Gram_Stone comments on Modal Chicken - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Gram_Stone 20 December 2015 10:10PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (7)

Comments (7)

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

Comment author: Gram_Stone 21 December 2015 05:38:12PM 0 points [-]

I wonder if there is a way that you might go about defining modal agents that reason something like:

I swerve if and only if my opponent doesn't swerve. Otherwise, I don't swerve.

and, very roughly:

If I don't swerve then my opponent reasons that I don't swerve and they swerve. So, I don't swerve.

It seemed weird to me that there would be something wrong with defining something like CarefulBot because it seems pretty analogous to the FairBot of the modal Prisoner's Dilemma.

Comment author: AlexMennen 21 December 2015 07:02:33PM 2 points [-]

You can't define a modal agent that swerves if and only if the other player doesn't swerve, because "the other player doesn't swerve" is not a modalized formula.

CarefulBot does not seem much like FairBot to me. It also seems undeserving of its name, since it doesn't swerve unless it can prove that the other player won't. Perhaps instead you should make it so it swerves unless it can prove that the other player does?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit