Personal website: https://outsidetheasylum.blog/ Feedback about me: https://www.admonymous.co/isaacking
Yeah, that could be relevant, but the system might be able to factor that in. For example, maybe it could be modeled as decreasing the maximum price the buyer is willing to pay (since they know they can have more attempts), and the system factors that in. I want it to be able to handle a broad range of real-world negotiations, so the exact details ideally shouldn't matter that much.
Agreed. In an ideal world there's no benefit to having more than one round, since all information that's going to be shared can be shared up front. I'm not sure if real life considerations change that.
Thanks for the edit. It wasn't my intention to "tease" people; my idea isn't the focus of this post, I'm hoping other people will suggest better ones. I just wanted to mention that I had an idea as a way of showing that there exist plausible solutions, and to signal that I had put some thought into it myself and wasn't just "asking people to do my homework" as it were.
I would appreciate it if people shared why they're downvoting this post. It's very discouraging to spend time writing up a detailed question and then just get mass downvoted for no apparent reason.
Edit: For context, I wrote this when the post was at -6 votes.
Ah, found the story. Wasn't quite as I remembered. (Search for "wrong number".)
https://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Speed-of-Information-Processing-in-a-Calculating-Prodigy-Shakuntala-Devi-1990-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen.pdf
Somewhat related; it seems likely that Bing's chatbot is not running on GPT-3 like ChatGPT was, but is running on GPT-4. This could explain its more defensive and consistent personality; it's smarter and has more of a sense of self than ChatGPT ever did.
I think you're missing the point. Designing a bespoke system for an individual negotiation that takes into account the exact dynamics of that particular situation doesn't seem at all feasible. I'm talking about a general system that's "good enough".