Simulations are not the most efficient way for A and B to reach their agreement
Are you claiming that the marginal returns to simulation are never worth the costs? I’m skeptical. I think it’s quite likely that some number of acausal trade simulations are run even if that isn’t where most of the information comes from. I think there are probably diminishing returns to various approaches and thus you both do simulations and other approaches. There’s a further benefit to sims which is that credence about sims effects the behavior of cdt agents, but it’s unclear how much this matters.
Additionally, you don’t need to nest sims at all, you can simply stub out the results of the sub simulations with other sims (I’m not sure you claim the sub sims cost anything). It’s also conceivably you do fusions between reasoning and sims to further reduce compute (and there are a variety of other possible optimizations).
Are you claiming that the marginal returns to simulation are never worth the costs? I’m skeptical. I think it’s quite likely that some number of acausal trade simulations are run even if that isn’t where most of the information comes from. I think there are probably diminishing returns to various approaches and thus you both do simulations and other approaches. There’s a further benefit to sims which is that credence about sims effects the behavior of cdt agents, but it’s unclear how much this matters.
Additionally, you don’t need to nest sims at all, you can simply stub out the results of the sub simulations with other sims (I’m not sure you claim the sub sims cost anything). It’s also conceivably you do fusions between reasoning and sims to further reduce compute (and there are a variety of other possible optimizations).