I can see how that would apply in principle. I’m just saying: wouldn’t you want a dramatically more real-world relevant scenario?
If you punish good behavior, of course you’ll get bad equilibria. Does punishing bad behavior also give bad equilibria? It would be fascinating if it did, but this scenario has nothing to say about that.
This has an obvious natural definition in this particular thought-experiment, because every action affects all players in the same way, and the effect of every action is independent of every other action (e.g. changing your dial from 70 to 71 will always raise the average temperature by 0.01, no matter what any other dial is set to). But that’s a very special case.
The given example involves punishing behavior that is predicted to lower utility for all players, given the current strategies of all players. Does that sound bad in any way at all?
I guess it doesn’t, when you put it that way. I’d just like an example that has more real-world connections. It’s hard to see how actual intelligent agents would adopt that particular set of strategies. I suspect there are some real world similarities but this seems like an extreme case that’s pretty implausible on the face of it.
It is punishing good behavior in the sense that they’re punishing players for making things better for everyone on the next turn.
I can see how that would apply in principle. I’m just saying: wouldn’t you want a dramatically more real-world relevant scenario?
If you punish good behavior, of course you’ll get bad equilibria. Does punishing bad behavior also give bad equilibria? It would be fascinating if it did, but this scenario has nothing to say about that.
What do you mean by “bad” behavior?
This has an obvious natural definition in this particular thought-experiment, because every action affects all players in the same way, and the effect of every action is independent of every other action (e.g. changing your dial from 70 to 71 will always raise the average temperature by 0.01, no matter what any other dial is set to). But that’s a very special case.
I don’t know, but I’d settle for moving to an example of bad effects from punishing behavior that sounds bad in any way at all.
The given example involves punishing behavior that is predicted to lower utility for all players, given the current strategies of all players. Does that sound bad in any way at all?
I guess it doesn’t, when you put it that way. I’d just like an example that has more real-world connections. It’s hard to see how actual intelligent agents would adopt that particular set of strategies. I suspect there are some real world similarities but this seems like an extreme case that’s pretty implausible on the face of it.
It is punishing good behavior in the sense that they’re punishing players for making things better for everyone on the next turn.