Oh, I hadn’t seen it before, but this file on wikipedia seems like it might be roughly that expanded version? Info Direct link to pdf I haven’t looked closely at it though. The pdf doesn’t render in firefox for me, but does render in evince, my external pdf viewer.
Thanks for finding this! I’m a bit confused, though; it suggests that the game with payoffs
(an instance of Cake Eating), is equivalent to one of those named games. But… which? It only has one pure Nash equilibrium, so it can’t be either hawk-dove or BOS, which both have two. And it can’t be equivalent to PD—an instance of that would be
and these aren’t equivalent. We have a11>a21 (3 > 1) but c11<c21 (3 < 4). So what am I missing?
(I had intended to try look this up myself, but I’m unlikely to do that in a timely manner, so I’m just leaving a comment. No obligation on you, of course.)
I absolutely think it makes sense, I just don’t know if I endorse it. Maybe it’s context dependent; someone who just wants to write about the Nash equilibria of games won’t have any reason to distinguish these cases, and lumping them all under “Prisoner’s Dilemma” seems absolutely fine. But Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma (in my sense) is probably a very different game from Iterated Too Many Cooks, but I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anyone talk about ITMC. And from a social perspective, “punish anyone who defects in a PD” makes sense but “punish anyone who doesn’t cook in TMC” risks leaving value on the table.
Maybe it would make sense to call them a “(something) Prisoner’s Dilemma” and a “(something else) Prisoner’s Dilemma” but I’m not sure what the somethings would be.
Ah, yeah. I had the same trouble and that would have been way better.
I don’t in general think there’s anything wrong with comparing utilities between people in these things—that’s what I’m doing when I talk about whether 2W>X+Y - but it would be simpler not to do so. Still, even then I think extending to all 8 would give far too many possibilities to be manually tractable—I make it 4!⋅4!/2=288.
But it wouldn’t be too hard to write a program to classify them according to Nash equilibria, if someone wanted to do that. That might be a decent start.
It does seem like the “best” game, Cake Eating, takes the “most holy” slot and the “worst” one, PD, takes the “most profane” slot. TINACBNIEAC.
Ah, GreaterWrong makes the link very obvious, but I couldn’t see it on LW. Have done, thanks.
(Transcription nitpick: IIRC I said “fewer constraints”, not “pure constraints”.)
A comment from the zoom chat (I forget who from) said something like: If the environment gives you a hash of an observation, and then the observation itself, then you have compression but not prediction.
(I.e., you can take the output and remove the hashes to compress it, but you can’t predict what’s coming next.)
Can you elaborate? The wikipedia summary, which accords with my memory, is that
She kills the person she thinks is the God of War. This doesn’t stop the war.
Steve sacrifices himself to stop the poison gas. (This is most of the “not literally nothing” I was referring to. I may have been downplaying it.)
She kills the actual God of War. The war stops. (This is the “beat up the villain and then everything will be fine” I was referring to.)
If it weren’t for (3) I’d agree with you.
I think they mean “should that “not” be there at all?”
Perhaps I’m missing the point, but doesn’t “because the juvenile needs to fit inside at least one parent” mostly suffice as an answer?
Conflict theorists, cashed out as something like “people who saw the article as an attempted power grab and so upvoted the person attacking it” feels like it fits, but… I dunno, I try to be hesitant to use conflict theory as an explanation, because it’s so easy to make it fit. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
I appreciated your words more than I would have done upvotes; thank you.
Perhaps, but… I honestly can’t tell what opinion that would be.
Like, a thing I appreciate about the commenter is that they’re admirably straightforward. They say what they think and don’t try to weasel out of it later. I don’t love that they’re deliberately trying to hurt me (seemingly without checking if they could accomplish their goals some other way), but at least they’re upfront about it. It seems to me that there’s unusually little room for misinterpretation here.
And yet, so much of what they’re saying is completely out there, and I just don’t believe that most people agree with it.
I could believe that most people agree, at least unreflexively and perhaps after consideration, with “OSS maintainers have no responsibility”. (And possibly even with “no responsibility at all without consent”.) But I think most of them would not bite the bullets that this user does.
Like, I could see someone saying “they don’t have a responsibility here, but they still shouldn’t deliberately introduce bugs to brick people’s OSes, and it’s totally reasonable for people to complain if they do”. And then there’s a conversation about what does responsibility even mean, and maybe it turns out we don’t mean the same thing by it and don’t really disagree that much, or maybe we actually do have some important disagreements. But that’s not at all where the conversation went.
I don’t believe most people agree with “If someone deliberately bricks a bunch of people’s OSes, and then stops doing that, you call them generous”. I don’t even believe most people agree with the earlier bit about deliberately bricking OSes not being something to complain about.
I could believe that most people agree, at least unreflexively and perhaps after consideration, that I’m being too demanding. I included a list of quotes to say “no, really, I’m demanding very little”, but I could see someone thinking I’m demanding more than I realize, or thinking I’m being dishonest about how much I’m demanding, or something. But that’s not where the conversation went either. That user doesn’t obviously think either of those. They call me a narcissist, but not a liar. They don’t say that the opt-outs I offer are burdensome.
I don’t believe that most people agree with the thing about “if I have a habit of offering to vacuum for people and not showing up, no one has the right to ask me why”.
So to the extent those comments express an opinion held by /r/programming at large, I think they also express much more extreme opinions that /r/programming doesn’t hold.
(I could be missing something, of course. I don’t trust myself to see clearly here.)
Lately it’s a reddit argument I had recently.
Not just the argument itself. One asshole I could deal with. The fact that people upvoted them...
Like, there’s nothing that particularly stands out to me about /r/programming readers. As far as I know they’re generally fairly normal humans. And a bunch of generally fairly normal humans apparently thought that those comments were good?
Yes, thanks! Someone on reddit also pointed me at purescript.
I’ve realized that since the only language I know with extensible records is Elm, it doesn’t say much that I don’t know any with open variants.
I think I basically agree. If I had to pick a chief benefit (which I don’t) I’d say that it enables easy macros—but it does that because it’s easy to parse and represent as Lisp data, so to some extent it just depends what level you feel like looking at.