- cross-posted to:
- youshouldknow
- cross-posted to:
- youshouldknow
You must log in or register to comment.
Just watched this, a few hours ago.
What I don’t get is that t4t strategy is reactionary, what if in the real world another nation/person/entity does something so drastic that you csnnot retaliate and annihilate you.
Pro active strategies might not win in game theory but it may as well ensure your survival in real life.
Or even if they don’t annihilate you, it still gives them so much of an advantage that any future games are biased in their favor.
As far as I understand, tit for tat will lose most individual duels. But it does cooperate a lot and makes lots of points as a whole. Proactive strategies win more, but they do not cooperate a lot (especially against each other), and in the end, they make fewer points. In real life, annihilating someone would make others not want to cooperate with you. So the options would be either to annihilate everyone or no one.
Yeah, from what I understand. If it an one-off encounter (annihilate each other), then tit for tat will lose most of the times. That is original version Prisoner’s dilemma and the answer for that version is you all should betray each other. When the scenario is not an one-off encounter but a repeated once then tit for tat will win most of the times.
If I understand correctly, tit-for-tat is the best strategy so far. But it is only based on a competition and some simulation. I wonder if we will ever find and prove an optimal strategy.
This video is highly recommended by Tournesol:
[53🌻] Veritasium: What Game Theory Reveals About Life, The Universe, and Everything#Tournesol is an open-source web tool by a non profit organization, evaluating the overall quality of the information in videos from community made comparisons, to fight against misinformation and dangerous content.
