A’s abuse of rules is, in my opinion, not slight. If everyone tried to stuff the ballot box in the same way… in practice it seems the main difference would be more Fuck Them All, but in theory it would lead to a skewed and uninformative tournament, decided more by popular vote than by strategic merit.
This raises the question of what sort of psychology might lead the author to cooperate on the object level while defecting on the meta level.
It depends on what sort of informativeness we want to achieve. What is the “ideal” distribution of strategies in the pool, not biased by popular vote? If there was a simple metric for strategy complexity, an analogue of Kolmogorov prior might work. But the actual pool was very far from that. Having more DefectBots and TitForTats would actually move us in that direction.
Having more DefectBots and TitForTats would actually move us in that direction.
Only by coincidence. It’s not like authors of simple strategies are systematically more likely than authors of complex strategies to try to cheat the metarules.
A’s abuse of rules is, in my opinion, not slight. If everyone tried to stuff the ballot box in the same way… in practice it seems the main difference would be more Fuck Them All, but in theory it would lead to a skewed and uninformative tournament, decided more by popular vote than by strategic merit.
This raises the question of what sort of psychology might lead the author to cooperate on the object level while defecting on the meta level.
It depends on what sort of informativeness we want to achieve. What is the “ideal” distribution of strategies in the pool, not biased by popular vote? If there was a simple metric for strategy complexity, an analogue of Kolmogorov prior might work. But the actual pool was very far from that. Having more DefectBots and TitForTats would actually move us in that direction.
Only by coincidence. It’s not like authors of simple strategies are systematically more likely than authors of complex strategies to try to cheat the metarules.