I based my solution on the information given, the definition of the problem.
It’s a mediation dilemma, my solution is valid by negation of the original problem, its a translation of the original problem space. Negotiation through the justice system is negated by the greed of the robbers, they get 80%. The robbers, by nature will not tell other robbers about the money through fear of being robbed themselves… hence they are a lone party. Even if they suspect a ruse their greed and self confidence in being ‘robbers’ will allow the ruse to play out/ continue. The dilemma is then not how to negotiate but how to kill robbers, a much simpler dilemma. A lot was explained about the first party, the robbers and their moral standing. Nothing was expressed about the second party, most people would naturally assume the second party, because they had legal right to the money, are morally above/ superior and thus vulnerable to the first… not necessarily so. Human nature is diverse, my point being that no matter how ‘bad ass’ a party perceives themselves to be, there is always someone worse, ie the second party. Assumptions are extremely dangerous by both parties; the translation of the problem space ultimately would come down to greedy robber’s vs the intelligent psychopathic killers. If done correctly, no one would be the wiser as to the ultimate fate of the robbers, there would be no proof or evidence… no dilemma… no problem... lie to the robbers, let their greed and sense of superiority seal their fate... No part of the described problem mentioned a solution were the second party would exit with the moral high ground. :) ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T5dd6b6c7d648588e-M860c15e7e5d58a148fcf0b41 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
