In non-iterated PD, someone who cooperates is a cooperator.
Nevertheless the CooperateBots win when playing between each other, while the rational agents lose when they have no mean to credibly commit.
No, the cooperators actually lose when playing each other, because they gain less than what they could, while the only reason they get anything at all is because they are playing against other cooperators. Likewise, the defectors win when playing other defectors, and they obviously win against cooperators. Cooperating could only win if it effected your opponent’s decision, which is not the case in PD.
It seems your definition of winning is flawed in that you want your agents to achieve results that are clearly outside their influence. Rationalists should win under the constraints of reality, not invent scenarios in which they have already won.
In non-iterated PD, someone who cooperates is a cooperator.
No, the cooperators actually lose when playing each other, because they gain less than what they could, while the only reason they get anything at all is because they are playing against other cooperators. Likewise, the defectors win when playing other defectors, and they obviously win against cooperators. Cooperating could only win if it effected your opponent’s decision, which is not the case in PD.
It seems your definition of winning is flawed in that you want your agents to achieve results that are clearly outside their influence. Rationalists should win under the constraints of reality, not invent scenarios in which they have already won.