(no subject)
Feb. 6th, 2003 10:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
noahgibbsI've just received an instant message from somebody named Karen65432104160. It's line after line after line, arriving slowly, entirely blank.
No, I take it back, it just started advertising somebody's webcam. Never mind.
That's kind of a shame. I much prefer surrealist spam to the regular kind.
A friend of mine,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mj2q, told me something that I need to think more about. He talked about game theory simulations where individual critters/people/whatever could help each other or hurt each other. There were some that always helped, some that always hurt, and (in some simulations), some that did what was done to them, so they helped the helpful ones and hurt the hurtful ones.
I don't recall the exact winning criteria, but the helpful critters died out if you had only helpful and hurtful critters. Hurting was simply a better strategy. But if you had the reciprocating ones in the mix as well, the hurtful critters would lose and the helpful ones would win. There was much more of an incentive to be helpful.
The study referred to the helpful critters as "good people", the hurtful critters as "bad people", and the reciprocating critters as "policemen".
No, I take it back, it just started advertising somebody's webcam. Never mind.
That's kind of a shame. I much prefer surrealist spam to the regular kind.
A friend of mine,
mj2q, told me something that I need to think more about. He talked about game theory simulations where individual critters/people/whatever could help each other or hurt each other. There were some that always helped, some that always hurt, and (in some simulations), some that did what was done to them, so they helped the helpful ones and hurt the hurtful ones.I don't recall the exact winning criteria, but the helpful critters died out if you had only helpful and hurtful critters. Hurting was simply a better strategy. But if you had the reciprocating ones in the mix as well, the hurtful critters would lose and the helpful ones would win. There was much more of an incentive to be helpful.
The study referred to the helpful critters as "good people", the hurtful critters as "bad people", and the reciprocating critters as "policemen".
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-02-06 06:45 pm (UTC)When I was in high school I wrote a genetic algorithm to generate strategies for playing the Prisoner's Dilemma. Unfortunately, I started the organisms with random strategies, in which case the best strategy is to consistently defect (and they dutifully evolved that very behavior).
It's a fascinating study...