An interesting post. I think q situation, such as this, would be fraught with pitfalls and untested assumptions. It's imperative to establish a valid and reliable baseline for further decision making.
I would think the "solution" has to do with hierarchies. Dynamical hierarchies. These may be employed to secure situational equilibrium, a standoff, neutral ground, consensus, etc. Arbitration is an acceptable, authority figure robbers AND legitimacy claimers would not dare to cross. Like CEOs, appointed to take the fall for everyone else. đ I would try model this problem as a complex-adaptive system, which it probably is. I would develop the model to inter alia determine the driving forces behind potential consensus. As Arbitrator, I'd start off with a neutral party, a guest facilitator, tasked with asking a functional question, e.g., "What is ABC dispute consensus?" and set out to specify the knowledge view of such a system. Bearing in mind, GIGO applies. The more knowledge you can get as input, the more reliable the result. If decision makers would agree to collectively talk about consensus with a neutral facilitator, in the presence of the Arbitrator as observer, they would probably also agree to abide to their verified, individual and joint views on consensus as represented by the resultant systems model. Hard arbitration would not be required, and if it were, the facts represented in the verified model would enable the Arbitrator to not only decide from a joint basis of prior consent, but also provide insight into the relative facts and convictions. It should increase the probably of success with the decision of arbitration, seeing as it may be related back to a position of consensus. If the Parties were not willing to attend, or participate, or talk, then consensus would be unlikely. Still, the Arbitrator would know who the party was who did not want to come to Arbitration. Given a proper methodology employed, the Arbitrator could also verify the truthfulness of partisipants against external data. Such a model would also be helpful to not only show core drivers for each party, but also represent a view on respective and collective, core-systemic flow, as well as illuminate hidden motives inherent in synthesized data. When all else fails, the same process could be repeated as many times as necessary, retro-integrating each result with prior results in order to enrich the contextual data and emerge a schema of behavior and "fact". I have facilitated many-a-mediation by - as a neutral party to benefits - conducting such models as cited above where all the key decision makers were invited to be present as equal representatives. The whole session would take on average 4 hours, then the paperwork can get signed. Not as hostile a setting as this though, mind you, but pretty hostile at times with major, international players and government who had much to lose or gain. It helps to have a legal "Ace" up the sleeve, which both parties would have to concede to, regardless of their negotiating positions. Threats only beget threats. With consensus, superbly, imperceptible, subtle implications of a likely inconvenience might work much better than threats in the long run. Sure, "Just do it, or I bomb the shit out of you!" might work for Trump, but I dread the day it doesn't anymore. That'll be more a case of arbitrarily choosing sides, and achieving effective arbitration. Once signatures were secured, verifying the outcome of the work session, the psychological power shifts completely to the side of effective consensus. It becomes a new deal all decision makers agreed to. Powerful forces of human psychology and sociology at work. Those results usually remained unchanged for long periods at a time. For now, you could simulate the "discussion" as a test of situational knowledge, but it would not secure you the outcome you stated here. Set up the work session, assign a neutral party, negotiate consensus on the ground via facilitation. I think that an AGI machine, equipped with such a consensus-engineering toolkit and deployed in the role of neutral toolmaster (facilitator-by-rulebase) and remote observer Arbitrator (background processing and informational feeds), when supported by a duly-mandated, human Decision Communicator, would be able to succeed. ________________________________ From: Steve Richfield <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 15 October 2019 08:33 To: AGI <[email protected]> Subject: [agi] Robber's Rules I am helping a friend get ready for a million-dollar mediation - and we are wrestling with a complex issue that appears to be mathematical in nature, akin to the Prisoner's Dilemma, and possibly a missing piece of AGI. The situation is complicated, but in a way like Israel or Ireland where two groups think they own the same thing, so they get together to discuss how this might be unfairly divided between them. My group sees the other as robbers who have acted fraudulently to secure their position, while the other group has papers in place giving them effective title - but with a 20-year wait to get anything. The mediation is how to divide up the money now, with some dangerous but uncertain leverage to ruin the robbers in court if they don't act reasonably. This seems to all boil down to ârobberâs rulesâ. Why donât robbers routinely kill their victims and strip them of their valuables? This is addressed in Adventures in Arabia by William Seabrook. There are several reasons â that all seem to sort of apply here: 1. Other robbers will see killers as being without principle, and so wonât trust them to fairly divide the booty. Therefore, it is more profitable to first kill the prospective killer â instead of the victim. 2. Blood is SO messy â when simply the threat of death can probably accomplish the same thing. 3. If you donât leave your victim with SOMETHING he might perish, and his death would be blamed on you. 4. If you are too greedy, others will hear about it and mount a posse to come after you. 5. If he has powerful friends, this could result in your own death. In a real-life incident described in his book, the author was accosted out in the middle of the dessert by a band of bandits. He produced a note written in Arabic he had been given to address such situations. The robbers carefully read the note â and sent him on his way without robbing him. How could any words possibly have turned such a situation around? His next goal was to find out precisely what the note said⌠I once had a related incident, where in high-school I was accosted by a gang of 5 teenage switch-blade-carrying delinquents â very much like the last scene in Westside Story. I was able to walk away uninjured. I starting by challenging their leader⌠I would think that SOMEONE has studied this sort of thing in the past - does anyone here know of such a study? Mediations seem SO much like ball squeezing contests. So, what is the winning strategy? With no agreement my group gets nothing, and the other group must wait 20 years to get it all. With an agreement, we cut this baby in two according to agreed upon percentages. There seems to be two camps: 1. Demand 100%, or else Russian Roulette in court with maybe a 50:50 chance, and 2. Divide it in half or ??? There will doubtless be head games, Mutt and Jeff setups, etc., as this thing unfolds. I posted this here because SO much of what people here expect an AGI to resolve are disputes much like this one. Thoughts? Steve Richfield Artificial General Intelligence List<https://agi.topicbox.com/latest> / AGI / see discussions<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + participants<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery options<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T5dd6b6c7d648588e-Mcc256f26dd21539cf369f97e> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T5dd6b6c7d648588e-M06c829503782938e8f2db7b6 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
