LESSWRONG
LW

All of bengr's Comments + Replies

AISC5 Retrospective: Mechanisms for Avoiding Tragedy of the Commons in Common Pool Resource Problems
bengr10

Yes, reputation was automatically updated each time step.

We thought it would make sense to decrease reputation for "unsustainable" and "violent" behaviors (e.g. over-harvesting apples, tagging other agents) and increase reputation for "sustainable" and "peaceful" behaviors. But these rules were all hardcoded.

Reply
April 15, 2040
bengr50

"But you're a stronger assistant than most people in my tax bracket have. Doesn't that give you an edge in negotiation?"

"The other assistants and I are using a negotiation protocol in which smarter agents are on an equal footing with dumber agents. Of course, people with less capable assistants would never agree to a protocol that puts them at a disadvantage."

I'm interested in what this negotiation protocol would look like. If one agent is "smarter" than its counterparts, what would prevent it from negotiating a more favorable outcome for its principal?

Reply
3Pattern
Simple answer: Solving 'equally' probably speeds up the computation, a lot. Longer answer: Arguably, it still can negotiate a more favorable outcome, just not at the expense of those parties - because they won't agree to it if that happens. Non-'zero sum' optimizing can still be on the table. For example, if all the 'assistants' agreed to something - like a number other than 90% and came back with that offer to Congress - that could work as it isn't making things worse for the small assistants.** The cooperation might involve source code sharing. (Maybe some sort of 'hot swap treaty (-building)'*, as the computation continues.) * a) so things can keep moving forward even if some of them get swapped out. b) Decentralized processing so factors like loss of internet won't break the protocol. ** I've previously pointed out that if this group is large enough that the OP's scenario happens, they can have a 'revolution'.