In response to comment by robert on Re-formalizing PD
Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 April 2009 01:01:29AM 9 points [-]

The simulating player does not have time to both simulate and interpret the results of its simulation.

...and so defects, because it's obvious what the other player intends.

Comment author: robert 30 April 2009 02:04:40AM 0 points [-]

...and so defects, because it's obvious what the other player intends.

More interestingly, what if the program being simulated has a really clever algorithm that just happens to take S steps to compute?

In response to Re-formalizing PD
Comment author: robert 29 April 2009 12:49:09AM *  1 point [-]

Let's introduce a time limit. Say that after a maximum of S computations (i.e., computation steps using some standardized notion) have passed, each player is forced to make a decision.

Now, write a program that is opaque to introspection: to find out what it decides (i.e. to COOPERATE or DEFECT) , it must be simulated until it halts. This program could use cryptography or other obsfuscation systems (random numbers would be useful). Engineer this program so that it take exactly S steps to run to completion.

The simulating player does not have time to both simulate and interpret the results of its simulation.

Seemingly, restricting all machines to the same time limit serves to reduce the efficacy of many (all?) of these adversarial simulation strategies.