And it's a very *good* strategy. But it's not optimal except in certain constrained situations. Note that all the strategies that I listed were VERY simple strategies. Tit-for-tat was better than any of them, but it requires more memory and the remembered recognition of individuals. As such it's more expensive to implement, so in some situations it looses out to Retaliator. (Anything sophisticated enough to be even a narrow AI should be able to implement tit-for-tat, however, if it could handle the recognition of individuals.) (Retaliator doesn't retain memory of individuals between encounters. It's SIMPLE.)
So, in other words, even if Friendliness is *only* just intelligent tit-for-tat . . . . (which it is -- don't bug me and I won't bug you :-)
Now admittedly the research on ESSs via simulations has focused on strategies that don't require any reasonable degree of intelligence.
Which pretty much invalidates it for AGI purposes as you say with . . . .
The simulator is needing to run large populations over large numbers of generations multiple times with slightly different assumptions. As such, it doesn't speak directly to "What is a good strategy for an advanced AI with lots of resources?", but it provides indications.
And I would argue that I've got a far better, more analogous study with several large populations over large numbers of generations. It's called the study of human religion. :-)
And "Kill them All!!" is a very poor strategy unless there it is adopted by a single individual that is vastly stronger than any opposition that it might encounter. (Even then it's not clearly a good strategy...except with certain specialized model conditions.
Thank you! So why am I having to argue this with Vladimir? ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
