4 ms·
The non-intuitive result, where more memory hurts, reminds a bit of two interesting games linked off of cryptographer Wei Dai's homepage (http://www.weidai.com/
by gojomo 8y ago
The non-intuitive result, where more memory hurts, reminds a bit of two interesting games linked off of cryptographer Wei Dai's homepage (http://www.weidai.com/ http://www.weidai.com/), under "social costs of intelligence":
• Why good memory could be bad for you: game theoretic analysis of a monopolist with memory.
http://www.weidai.com/monopoly-memory.txt http://www.weidai.com/monopoly-memory.txt
• Why cleverness could be bad for you: a game where the smarter players lose. http://www.weidai.com/smart-losers.txt http://www.weidai.com/smart-losers.txt
- occamrazor 8y agoIn the first link, memory-less case, the seller’s expected profit should be 0.25, not 0.5: he sells its product for 0.5 half of the times.
- Majromax 8y agoBoth the seller's expected profit and the buyer's surplus are summed over two periods. The buyer has an expected surplus of 0.25 when the sale is made, but the sale is only made 50% of the time.
- TagAsDelusion 8y agocollective deceit grows when intelligence is concentrated