gromolko t1_jaxg00c wrote
I thought tit-for-tat - strategies were shown to be powerless against swarming the competitions with master / slave bots, where the first few exchanges are a code to establish whether an alliance exists and the slaves are programmed to destroy non-allied participants regardless of the cost to themselves and to give points to their masters. That would explain why cults seem to be doing really well in reality right now.
SNRatio t1_jaxt7ik wrote
In some of the tournaments described in the thread, after each round winning strategies reproduce and take up more seats in the next round. Losing strategies get fewer seats in the next round. I would guess that the slave strategies would quickly fall out of the competition. How would the masters fare against generous tit for tat without slaves? Instead of cults, this could be a model for tribalism.
gromolko t1_jaziow5 wrote
I imagine it would be possible to programm a multi level hierarchy so that "point providers" (although probably not the "suicide bombers" ) can still give an advantage to their higher-ups in later iterations of the tournament. Also, I imagine having a lot of offspring from the first iteration gives a statistical advantage to the "masters" , especially since they just can use a forgiving tit for tat strategy when their opponent doesn't identify as a member of the cult.
emelrad12 t1_jb008lk wrote
Masters become slaves to keep a ratio of 70%.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments