I'm a longtime lurker who has taken interest in the new tagging system.


Sorted by New


How Lesswrong helped me make $25K: A rational pricing strategy

Do you have a special case for someone who already has a job and is searching for a better paying one? That person's opportunity cost would not be 

(future pay per week x number of additional weeks spent searching) 


((future pay per week - current pay per week)  x  number of additional weeks spent searching)

Pseudorandomness contest, Round 2

It seems reasonably possible to be confident that a string is human-generated, but if anyone did their job well in round 1, it probably won't be possible to be confident that a string is computer-generated. 

Maybe some of the ones left over will seem slightly more or less random, but probably at some point I'll just have n strings left over and assign them all probability 62/n, adjusted for whatever uncertainty I had about the ones that seemed human-generated.

What are the best precedents for industries failing to invest in valuable AI research?

Blockbuster failed to invest in internet tech for their movie rental business and was outcompeted by smaller, more savvy startups.


Seconded, DeepMind seems like a natural tag to have given that we have tags for OpenAI, Ought, MIRI, etc.

Complex Behavior from Simple (Sub)Agents

Last-minute nomination: This is high-quality and timeless, and would look nice in a book.

The Darwin Game - Conclusion

A: EarlyBirdMimicBot is extremely restrictive about what it simulates, because I was worried about malware. MeasureBot confirmed this fear, though I could have been less restrictive and still avoided it. Therefore, PasswordBot cannot look at its opponent's source code if it wants EarlyBirdMimicBot to simulate it.

B: EarlyBirdMimicBot's simulation strategy is brute force, looking at the result of every possible sequence of the next N moves. lsusr required bots to make their moves quickly, so to save on time I only considered the moves 2 and 3 when simulating. 

I could have addressed this by simply having a special case behavior against PasswordBots instead of simulating them, but I didn't think of that.

C: I was actually planning to do this but screwed it up and did not check it properly before uploading. It would have been tit-for-tat against the field if I did it right.

The Darwin Game - Conclusion

What happens if EarlyBirdMimicBot is less scared to simulate? How much faster does it win?

I actually win less in that case, even if I get there faster. I get perfect cooperation with the deterministic cooperators written in Python, so one or two of them stick around forever if they last long enough. It can be two if one of them starts 2 and the other starts 3 so they cooperate with each other, though I'm not sure if there's a deterministic Python bot that starts 3.

The Darwin Game - Conclusion

The clones do not fold; in the early game they play an EquityBot-ish strategy that gives attackers less than cooperation would have gotten them. Only a couple of players were willing to fold in the early game, and usually only after ten or more turns of attack. Attacking for tens of turns to find out whether your opponent is a FoldBot will destroy you in a pool of mostly not FoldBots.

Simulation would be able to tell you who to bully without having to go through that - run the opponent for 100 turns and see if they eventually fold against all 3s. But as always, simulation runs the risk of MeasureBot-style malware.

In Addition to Ragebait and Doomscrolling

I thought we were already calling it Sneer Culture.

The Darwin Game - Conclusion

Looking through the code, yep, my simulation criteria were so conservative that I only simulated the PasswordBots. OscillatingTwoThreeBot was oh so close to only having two open parentheses but it used a decorative set of parentheses in the class definition (as did many others) Looks like I didn't need simulation anyway.

I am somewhat interested in using the code to explore alternate timelines. Who wins without me? Who wins the clone showdown if it's allowed to happen? What happens if you start the game at round 90 and make the smart bots use their endgame strategies in a pool full of silly bots? What happens if you remove npc bots and have a pool of only players? Does anything interesting happen if the number of turns per round is 101 rather than 100? I'm probably not interested enough to commit to doing this in a timely manner though.

What marginal submission would win in this pool? Probably just a MimicBot with Measure's opening game. Using simulation, especially hy-compatible simulation, could make you win more as long as you didn't simulate MeasureBot, or only simulated it in a separate thread.

It's been a great ride. Thanks for running the game, lsusr.

Load More