4 ms·
You're just playing tit-for-tat. The main benefit it extreme simplicity- in principle, one bit of memory per person, and one if-then decision. And it performs
by morlockabove 6y ago
You're just playing tit-for-tat. The main benefit it extreme simplicity- in principle, one bit of memory per person, and one if-then decision. And it performs very well in iterated prisoner's games.
Yes, everyone has a complex inner history blah blah blah. There's 6 billion people, and you're not going to give equal attention to all of them, so you need different approaches.
Plus, explicitly playing tit-for-tat keeps you from being emotionally gamed as easily.
- bumby 6y agoAs you state, it’s based on an overly simplified model. I.e., it’s a heuristic that may not generalize well to the more complex realities of life, depending on what you’re trying to achieve. It’s akin to an objective function of “find a reasonable local optimum solution that requires as little overhead as possible” which can completely miss the global optimum. I was asking for clarification because I was curious how important the “overhead cost” function was as a constraint to the OP. That’s probably where our perspectives diverge; I’m usually willing to take on more of that overhead cost if it can break me out of the local solution. As an aside, the perspective is appreciated but dismissive approaches to comments (“blah blah blah”) tend to go against HN guidelines. You make good points but I wouldn’t want them to be lost to moderators because of the phrasing