a game is always less complicated than the real thing is trying to simulate
I see no reason to believe that this game was trying to accurately simulate reality.
One notable difference is that in this game nothing was a stake. You launch your nukes, obliterate Moscow, get obliterated in return, and they all y’all go have a beer and discuss the whooshing sound that ICBMs make as they rise out of their silos.
he considers Trump pretty clueless (level B speaking), so that necessarily all his moves would be random.
Huh? Even under this assumption, since when clueless people behave randomly?
I see no reason to believe that this game was trying to accurately simulate reality.
Do you know something more about it that I don’t? Because neither I know if it was trying to simulate reality, and I also have no idea if it wasn’t, so it’s 1⁄2.
One notable difference is that in this game nothing was a stake.
That is a general argument against any game, simulation or drill.
Huh? Even under this assumption, since when clueless people behave randomly?
Well, nothing is onthologically random, but from a Bayesian perspective, random is something about which you have no information. So if Trump has no information about the state space of international equlibria, from the point of view of the system his actions will be random.
No, but my prior is neutral—I said “I have no reason to believe” otherwise. In general, I think that in most games/simulations/scenario playthroughs of this sort accurate simulation is merely an instrumental goal and the actual terminal goals vary.
That is a general argument against any game, simulation or drill.
Not so, you can play for stakes including high stakes.
So if Trump has no information about the state space of international equlibria, from the point of view of the system his actions will be random.
Don’t think in black and white. Even assuming Trump is clueless, he has some information about geopolitics and will act according to his goals and information available to him which is not zero.
Let me point out some examples of random moves: sending troops to occupy New Guinea; imposing trade sanctions on Kiribati; signing a mutual defence treaty with Uruguay. Do you think any of this is likely?
I see no reason to believe that this game was trying to accurately simulate reality.
One notable difference is that in this game nothing was a stake. You launch your nukes, obliterate Moscow, get obliterated in return, and they all y’all go have a beer and discuss the whooshing sound that ICBMs make as they rise out of their silos.
Huh? Even under this assumption, since when clueless people behave randomly?
Do you know something more about it that I don’t? Because neither I know if it was trying to simulate reality, and I also have no idea if it wasn’t, so it’s 1⁄2.
That is a general argument against any game, simulation or drill.
Well, nothing is onthologically random, but from a Bayesian perspective, random is something about which you have no information. So if Trump has no information about the state space of international equlibria, from the point of view of the system his actions will be random.
No, but my prior is neutral—I said “I have no reason to believe” otherwise. In general, I think that in most games/simulations/scenario playthroughs of this sort accurate simulation is merely an instrumental goal and the actual terminal goals vary.
Not so, you can play for stakes including high stakes.
Don’t think in black and white. Even assuming Trump is clueless, he has some information about geopolitics and will act according to his goals and information available to him which is not zero.
Let me point out some examples of random moves: sending troops to occupy New Guinea; imposing trade sanctions on Kiribati; signing a mutual defence treaty with Uruguay. Do you think any of this is likely?
You’ll have to ask Eliezer, I’m afraid. But I understand where you’re coming from, I guess neither Yudkowsky believed in such level of cluelessness.