Larks comments on To signal effectively, use a non-human, non-stoppable enforcer - LessWrong

31 Post author: Clippy 22 May 2010 10:03PM

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

Comments (164)

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

Comment author: Larks 23 May 2010 10:40:00AM 1 point [-]

ETA: You edited your comment. Those are indeed the correct headers, so my correction above no longer applies.

Sorry for the confusion. I understand now; the extra space between two of the columns confused me.

However, I suspect we need a stronger logic to represent this properly. If Q always defects, no matter what, "you would cooperate with me if ... I ... cooperate with you" is false, but is given true in the propositional interpretation.