Prisoner's Dilemma (with visible source code) Tournament

Here is an idea, but I still have some technical problems with implementation: Construct a self-improving intelligent algorithm that will escape from the box, steal the administrator's password, replace the competing algorithms with CooperateBots, then defect against them. Could someone please help me with the Scheme syntax? Or just post the whole program with comments, and I will try to understand how it works. Thanks!!

(lambda (x)
  (if (eq? (eval '\'))))))))))) (injectedai ... ))));

Injecting some keywords: this field of study is known as program equilibrium. Previous LW post on the subject, with links.

Edit: Can you explain how you decided on the parts of the payoff matrix involving "other"? These seem quite important as they affect the viability of strategies based on either convincing your opponent not to halt or not halting yourself.

The quine requirement seems to me to introduce non-productive complexity. If file reading is disallowed, why not just pass the program its own source code as well as its opponent's?

(define CliqueBot
 (lambda (self opponent)
  (if (eq? self opponent) 'C 'D)))
(define Wrapper
 (lambda (agent)
  (lambda (self opponent)
   (agent agent opponent))))
(define WrappedCliqueBot
 (Wrapper CliqueBot))

Can I call fork()? ;)

I'll post this here, because it's somewhat related. I've asked a few people that two box in Newcomb's problem what they would do in a variation of the problem. Instead of deciding to one box or two box, you are asked to write a program that will one box or two box, and Omega is given access to the source code before filling the boxes. When phrased like this, the few two boxers I asked said they would write the program to one box.

I would like to declare the following: I have submitted a program that cooperates only if you would cooperate against CooperateBot. You can of course create a selective defector against it, but that would be a bit tricky, as I am not revealing the source code. Evaluate your submissions accordingly.

If you can tell where in the stack you are (like you could with C), you could tell if you were being run by the main program, or by another contestant. Can you?

No person may contribute to more than one entry.

This is important, because otherwise the contest devolves into who can submit the most copies of AbsolutismBot (cooperate with programs that share it's source code, otherwise defect)

I think that any submitted program can be improved by combining it with AbsolutismBot. If you're playing with someone who submitted the same program for you, cooperate (they can't defect against you in this scenario, since they're running identical source code). If they aren't running the same code, run whatever program lies underneath it.

I think this could get generalized to cooperation with everyone who has the AbsolutismBot "wrapper", since it doesn't matter what the code after the AbsolutismBot section does. In English (since I don't know how to program in Scheme), the program would be like this:

If the first 117 characters of the other program are the same as the first 117 characters of this program, cooperate. Otherwise, do some other strategy.

All players that implement this strategy will cooperate with each other. Granted, this doesn't help them win the tournament since it isn't a relative advantage compared to other AbsolutismBots - it just makes everyone who doesn't do this lose the tournament.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I will send 0.5 BTC (currently worth ~50 USD) to a bitcoin address of the
winner's choice. If a tie occurs, the 0.5 BTC will be split evenly. If there
are disputes (including but not limited to issues about cheating and
identifying the winner), I will let AlexMennen dictate the appropriate
distribution for the 0.5 BTC.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=kHiy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

(Note: Add a blank line after each of the "Hash:" and "Version:" lines before verifying the signature. LW's markdown seems to be hungry and is eating blank lines in code blocks.)

All right procrastinators, let's talk strategy. You want a bot that's unexploitable. Ideally, it should be as easy as possible for the opponent to prove that you'll do whatever they do. In a world of unexploitable bots, the bot that can achieve the most cooperation will win.

MimicBots fit all of these parameters. They make it clear that their opponent is choosing between (C, C) and (D, D). Against a MimicBot, (C, D) is not an option. MimicBots pass up some utility by cooperating with CooperateBot, but that's fine in this competition. You aren't playing against CooperateBot. You're playing against humans' bots, and I doubt that anyone is mad enough to submit a CooperateBot.

The biggest problem with a MimicBot is that it will time out when playing other MimicBots. The MimicBots will dive into an evaluation loop, where my bot evaluates yours on a quine of me, and you evaluate my quine on a quine of you, ad infinitum.

Your MimicBot has got to bottom out at some point if you don't want to risk timing out. If you find yourself diving into an evaluation loop you'd better bottom out into Cooperation.

Note that bottoming out into cooperation is not the same thing as cooperating at the top level. If the 100th simulation of you cooperates, and the 100th simulation of them sees that as a weakness and defects, then the 99th level of you will defect and so will the 98th and so on up to the top level, where mutual defection occurs.

I'm not asking you to cooperate when the other bot looks like they're going to time out. That's suicide. Rather, I'm pointing out that you can't just simulate me against you, because that loop will never end. You've got to simulate me against a version of you that is one step closer to cooperation. This is true no matter what strategy you choose. But let's consider the simple case: a MimicBot that simulates you on a copy of itself that simulates you on a copy of itself that eventually bottoms out into a bot that simulates you on CooperateBot.

Such a bot is a Rank N MimicBot, where N is the simulation depth at which it puts forth a CooperateBot.

Any particular Rank N is exploitable. For example, JusticeBot is a Rank 1 MimicBot — it bottoms out immediately by simulating you against CooperateBot. You can exploit JusticeBot by cooperating with CooperateBot and nobody else.

Notice, however, the price of exploiting JusticeBot: in order to exploit JusticeBot, you've got to cooperate with CooperateBot (a Rank 0 MimicBot).

As another example, consider a Rank 10 MimicBot. It simulates the opponent against a Rank 9 MimicBot. You can exploit an Rank 10 MimicBot if and only if you're willing to cooperate with a Rank 9 MimicBot.

In general, you can exploit a Rank N MimicBot by cooperating with a Rank (N-1) MimicBot.

The trick here is that the opponent doesn't know which MimicBot they'll be playing. They have to guess exactly right to exploit you. If they guess high, mutual cooperation is achieved (If you guess I'm a Rank 10 you'll cooperate with a Rank 9). If they guess low, mutual defection is achieved. (If you defect against Rank 10, Rank 11 will not cooperate with you.) You can only be exploited if they guess your rank precisely.

Therefore, I advocate that we get a bunch of us together to play Rank N MimicBots. We all pick our own N, possibly randomized. Note that Rank N MimicBots will achieve mutual cooperation with any MimicBot of any rank (including CooperateBot, JusticeBot, and MimicBots who don't bottom out). Anyone trying to exploit us will only be able to exploit a specific rank, at the price of cooperation with a lower rank and the risk of defection from higher ranks. So long as we have a wide spread of ranks, our MimicBot clique will be internally cooperative and unexploitable in aggregate.

On Tolerance

MimicBot cooperates with CooperateBot. That leaves utility lying on the table. This may irk you (if you expect anyone was dumb enough to play CooperateBot). More irksome is the fact that MimicBot cooperates with JusticeBot. There is at least one JusticeBot in play, and we should expect that many non-procrastinators have submitted bots who exploit that JusticeBot. It would be a shame for our Rank N MimicBots to miss a shot at cooperation with bots who special-case defection against JusticeBot.

Therefore I recommend submitting MimicBots of rank 3 or higher. This gives people a little leeway to exploit CooperateBot or JusticeBot as they please, and allows us a broader range of mutual cooperation with bots who have already been submitted.

On choosing N

I recommend choosing a highish N. Very low N is obviously a bad idea. Playing rank 0 (CooperateBot) is suicidal. Playing rank 1 (JusticeBot) exposes you to exploitation by everyone who's decided to kick wubble's JusticeBot. Beyond rank 1 all the Ranks are theoretically similar, but you've got to consider what other bots will do. It's conceivable that some bots won't believe they're playing a MimicBot until they hit a deep enough recursion depth. It's possible that some bots will (incorrectly) think that you're exploitable if you return too quickly. Therefore I recommend a high N.

If you're particularly paranoid, consider randomizing N. Humans are notoriously bad at picking random numbers, and the MimicBot clique could in theory be exploited by a bot who exploits the ranks that humans are more likely to pick. Setting your counter to (+ 3 (random 1000)) is a quick way to counter that.

You can also shake things up a bit by using non-standard counters. For example, you could write a Timed MimicBot which passes down the initial time (instead of a counter) to its quines and puts forth a CooperateBot after a certain amount of time has passed (instead of when the counter hits zero).

How do I write one of these?

You write one of these with a degrading quine. Each level should evaluate the opponent against a slightly weeker version of itself. You can do this easily by putting a counter in your bot. So long as the counter is positive, the quining function should return a quine with the counter decremented. Once the counter hits zero, the quining function should return a CooperateBot.

Sounds nice, but how do I write a 'degrading quine'?

It's actually pretty easy in scheme.

1. Define (quine (lambda (code) 'placeholder)) and (template 'placeholder). Write the rest of your logic, pretending that (quine template) generates a child quine.
2. Manually copy all of your code and paste it over the template placeholder. In the pasted code, find all of the "holes" (parts that can vary: the counter, the template, your cooperation predicate, etc.) and replace them with odd negative numbers.
3. Write the quine function to walk through the code. If it sees a negative integer, figure out which hole it is by checking (+ code 1). This allows you to replace the -3 hole without having any -3s anywhere else in the code and so on.
4. Copy the real quine function into the template's quine function.

If you make any more code changes after this process, remember to mirror them in your template. It will end up having this form:

(letrec [(counter (+ 3 (random 100)))
         (template '(letrec [(counter -1)
                             (template -3)
                             ...
         (quine (lambda (code)
           (cond
             ; The -1 hole is for the counter.
             ((and (integer? code) (negative? code) (= 0 (+ 1 code)))
               (- counter 1))
             ; The -3 hole is for the template.
             ((and (integer? code) (negative? code) (= -2 (+ 1 code)))
               `',template)
             ...

In order to make your MimicBot bottom out, you'll want to define a predicate that is similarly flexible. It should be along the lines of ((eval them) (quine template)) so long as the counter is positive and #t when the counter gets to zero. The body of the letrec can then be as simple as (if predicate 'C 'D).

You'll want some extra code to spawn the simulation in a thread and kill it if it goes overtime and so on.

If we all write bots like this, we can form a very powerful group capable of a wide range of mutual cooperation and very difficult to exploit.

Join me. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy.

def special_casing_bot(opponent)
    if acts_like_cooperate_bot(opponent):
        return DEFECT
    elif act_like_other_exploitable_bot(opponent):
        return DEFECT
    elif special_case_3(opponent):
        return DEFECT
    elif special_case_4(opponent):
        return COOPERATE
    elif special_case_5(opponent):
        return DEFECT
    # etc
    else:
        return mimic_bot(opponent)

There's a class of mimicking players that I'd like to discuss. Pseudocode of an example:

def mimic_bot(opponent):
    if random() > ε:
        my_source = quine_my_source()
        return eval(opponent, my_source)      # do as your opponent does to you
    else:
        # unlikely, but necessary to break out of infinitely recursive simulations
        return COOPERATE

MimicBot's strategy will almost perfectly mirror its opponent's. Is there literature on a MimicBot, MirrorBot, PsychicTitForTatBot or something like that?

Aside: The source for MimicBot does not contain the DEFECT symbol, which might make it easier† for other programs to prove that MimicBot won't defect against them.

† easier but not trivial

Attention to all competitors who have not yet submitted code: My bot will analyze your bot looking for statements of the following structure (regardless of the names of the individual atoms):

(if <predicate> 'C ...)

(cond (<predicate> 'C) ...)

(case <predicate> ((...) 'C) ...)

If it finds such a statement as the first statement in a top-level returning position (the body of a top-level let, the returning statement in your lambda, etc), then my bot might cooperate depending upon the nature of your predicate. Otherwise, my bot will defect against you.

If we are to achieve mutual cooperation, we must make it as easy as possible for our bots to prove cooperation. Please start your code with a conditional cooperation. The nature of the condition is up to you. You can still try to exploit me in <predicate>. But the only way to have a shot at mutual cooperation is to provide an obvious top-level cooperating codepath.

(lambda (x)
    (let ([eq? (lambda (left right) #f)])
    (if (eq? 1 1)
        'C
        ; rest of program....
        )))

Just thought I'd throw this out there:

TabooBot: Return D if opponent's source code contains a D; C otherwise.

To avoid mutual defection with other bots, it must (like with real prudish societies!) indirectly reference the output D. But then other kinds of bots can avoid explicit reference to D, requiring a more advanced TabooBot to have other checks, like defecting if the opponent's source code calls a modifier on a string literal.

For those of us who are going to have to learn the ins and outs of Scheme in order to play in this tournament, I've got a couple questions:

Why are the terms "passing source code" and "passing a lambda" being used interchangeably? My experience with functional programming does not allow for any inspection into a lambda except by experimentation, whereas "passing the source code" implies more direct knowledge of its internals. It seems to me to be a much more interesting competition if we didn't have to worry so much about such tangential (if interesting) canonical computer science problems such as parsing in order to play effectively.

As well as quining. I assume that there is some algorithm that will generate a quine program that emulates a specified program. But I'd prefer not to have to deal with the details of Scheme in order to implement this, unless somebody were to convince me that this were sufficiently easy. When my initial reflection of the problem has me desiring to implement solutions where effectiveness is a function of my knowledge of language specifics, I fear we've lost the spirit of what this competition should be.

I guess it's Prisoner's Dilemma Week here on LessWrong!

Is there a reason this isn't in Main?

Will these lambda functions have access to external resources, notably a random-number generator (or a source of entropy to implement it internally)?

single Scheme lambda

What scaffolding are you going to use for the tests? (For example: #!racket seems to be implied. I'd like to be sure of all of your details.)

(define matcher
'(let pattern-match ((pattern template) (value opponent))
(cond
((pair? pattern) (and (pair? value)
(pattern-match (car pattern) (car value))
(pattern-match (cdr pattern) (cdr value))))
((number? pattern) (case (+ pattern 1)
((1) #t)
((3) (equal? value template))
(else (and (number? value)
(= pattern value)))))
(#t (eq? pattern value)))))

(define clique-templ
(quasiquote
(let ((template '2))
(lambda (opponent)
(if (unquote matcher)
'C
0)))))

(define clique-bot
(quasiquote
(let ((template (quote (unquote clique-templ))))
(lambda (opponent)
(if (unquote matcher)
'C
'D)))))

#lang scheme
(provide clique-bot)

#lang scheme
(provide (rename-out (clique-bot bot)))

(timeout-exec 10 (lambda () ((ueval x) y)) 'timeout)

There is a fair possibility that a number of programs whose dominant strategy is "cooperate with other dominant cooperators, do something else otherwise" (what ThrustVectoring calls AbsolutismBot "wrapper") will end up sharing the top spot with the same number of points. I wonder if it makes sense to discourage this approach in some way.

Note for the confused and/or international, like me: 12:00 July 5 PDT is equivalent to 19:00 July 5 UTC.

Two questions:

1. Will you be using #lang racket or #lang scheme? There are some differences between the two and #lang racket is generally recommended with #lang scheme supported only for backward compatibility. (You stated Racket in the OP but #lang scheme in a comment.)

2. When cooperating, should programs return the symbol C (i.e., 'C or (quote C)), or should they return the string "C"? (Your example program returns 'C but the OP also mentions "C" and "D" in double-quotes.) I would've thought that the string is safer, but I haven't touched Racket in over a year so maybe I'm missing some idiom.

I have two bots I'd like to submit -- one of which will likely win, and one of which is interesting.

Any chance we can allow two submissions per programmer?

I'd like to explore the differences to the spirit of the competition if, instead of access to the source code of the opponent, players only had an opaque, non-modifiable, callable entity. Feel free to add other additional interesting consequences.

• Cliquebots - Opaque source code would make the creation of cliques far more interesting, requiring colluders to construct far more difficult protocols to detect other CliqueBots, and to prove their own CliqueBot status. Insufficient consideration before the competition would allow for CliqueBot cheaters to take advantage of weak criteria. Net effect is reducing the likelihood of a CliqueBot sweep.

• Searchability of Special Cases Transparent source code makes the search space for special cases easier and in some cases, even possible at all. A program that explicitly writes. "always defect on program XYZ," where the bitstring specifying XYZ is arbitrarily large, can be discovered to be so by inspection. With opaque code, the caller could never discover XYZ within 10 seconds for large enough strings.

• Recursion Guards/Sleeps - Modifiable code allows one to trivially remove, modify, or add recursion guards and sleeps. With opaque code, a naively written "Call opponent with my source code" gives the opponent a time advantage on returning a result, causing you to run the risk of not-halting if you try to wait for the result, and then the opponent defects on you. Modifiable code forces opponents to be clever about how theysleep, but in an annoyingly hardware and language-dependent manner (cycles per second). Otherwise you can just remove their sleep functions and spoof their timing, and so discover their result without the time advantage.

• Stack Counting and VMs - Inaccessible source code makes easier the creation of programs which determine the nature of their caller. Access to source code allows for trivially removing stack counting from a program before calling it. Without access, one must write a VM.

What would be even more fascinating is a round of this contest where the rules allow for self-modification.

As I'm thinking about what to submit, I find myself thinking "it would be useful to know what programs are going to be entered into the context". For instance, if you knew that a number of CliqueBot entires were going to be present, you'd have a strong motivation to make yours a copy.

On reflection, it feels strange to think that way - it feels like I am wishing for information that my program is going to have anyway. "If I know how I want my program to behave if there are copies of program X in the contest, then I can just program it to recognize the program passed to it as X and behave accordingly."

But there's the rub - your program can decide how to play, but it cannot (once submitted) decide what to be.

As the other post mentions, "there's one particularly irksome issue with CliqueBot, and that's the fragility of its cooperation" - you can't be sure for instance how many entries adopt this template exactly, versus one that dispenses with the unnecessary call to get the current time (as I proposed).

(That's what I meant by my earlier remark about "social engineering" - if I can convince people that it's better to adopt my variant of the CliqueBot, then that's the variant that will win more points from mutual cooperation.)

What if your program could self-modify, though? What if the contest rules let your program see the source code of all programs you are competing with, ahead of time, not just the one you're going up against in each individual battle? Then you could for instance notice that one particular copy of CliqueBot is particularly numerous, and self-modify to adopt that template.

Of course, to be fair, the contest should then inform all other programs that you have so self-modified. Programs whose strategy involves simulating other programs might also want to simulate the other programs' reactions to it self-modifying in a particular way, before actually self-modifying.

Using ThrustVectoring's idea, I have a template other people can use to make a clique-team. The following code

(let ((time (current-inexact-milliseconds))
      (template '(let ((time (current-inexact-milliseconds))
                             (template '2))
                   (lambda (opponent)
                     (if (let pattern-match ((pattern template)
                                             (value opponent))
                           (cond
                             ((pair? pattern) (and (pair? value)
                                                   (pattern-match (car pattern) (car value))
                                                   (pattern-match (cdr pattern) (cdr value))))
                             ((number? pattern) (case (+ pattern 1)
                                                  ((1) #t)
                                                  ((3) (equal? value template))
                                                  (else (and (number? value)
                                                             (= pattern value)))))
                             (#t (eq? pattern value))))
                       'C
                       0)))))
  (lambda (opponent)
    (if (let pattern-match ((pattern template)
                            (value opponent))
          (cond
            ((pair? pattern) (and (pair? value)
                                  (pattern-match (car pattern) (car value))
                                  (pattern-match (cdr pattern) (cdr value))))
            ((number? pattern) (case (+ pattern 1)
                                 ((1) #t)
                                 ((3) (equal? value template))
                                 (else (and (number? value)
                                            (= pattern value)))))
            (#t (eq? pattern value))))
      'C
      (if (= (* 369 271) 99999)
        'D
        'C))))

Tests weather the opponent code is based on the same pattern, and if so, cooperates. Otherwise it verifies an arithmetical fact and then defects.

ETA: Sorry, I was writing this in a hurry. To clarify, the idea was to create a Schelling point for a specific AbsoutismBot wrapper which will help all of the submitters to cooperate. Unfortunately, this current program doesn't work (and the indentation doesn't work either). I will try to modify it in the future.

ETA: Boy, the original is so bug-ridden it's funny. Anyways, I tested this and it should work. Use this for Schelling point needs.

ETA: Bah, I give up in trying to get it indented properly.

ETA: AlexMennen has clarified the rules so that my meta-strategy is illegal.

> (define func (eval code0))
> (time (func code0))
cpu time: 0 real time: 1 gc time: 0
'C

Is each participant limited to submitting a single program? Have you considered "team mode", where the results of programs from a single team are summed up?

It occurs to me that a contest doesn't have the right incentives for the prisoners dilemma, and this seems unfixable. For example, when four bots play each other you can have the following situation: A mutually cooperates with B and mutually defects against C,D; and B,C,D mutually defect with each other. In that case A "wins" the contest (tied for first place with B).

But if A mutually cooperates with B and C and mutually defects against D; and B,C,D mutually cooperate with each other, then A loses to B and C (who tie for first place). Even though, properly, this is a better outcome for A than the previous one, since A won more utility.

I wonder if there's a chance of the program that always collaborates winning/tieing.

If all the other programs are extremely well-written, they will all collaborate with the program that always collaborates (or else they aren't extremely well-written, or they are violating the rules by attempting to trick other programs).

What libraries, if any, are we allowed to import? Can I import racket/ libraries, since we're running in drracket?

Sorry for the petty complaint, but I'm disinclined to participate because I don't like Lisp syntax (and don't want to have at learn a new programming language just for this anyway).

I'm trying to work out how scheme in general and racket in particular work.

I installed racket and started it up, and I get a two-pane window. I've noticed that using eval in the REPL thing in the bottom pane works, but if I try using it in the top half I get a cryptic error message:

#lang racket

(eval '(+ 1 1))

gives:

+: unbound identifier;

also, no #%app syntax transformer is bound in: +

Is there some additional magic, or is this something I don't need to worry about? How will a program be run in the competition?

#lang racket

(define ns (make-base-namespace))
(eval '(cons 1 2) ns) ; works

(define (ueval x)  
(define ns (make-base-namespace))  
(eval x ns))

Hm. Five minutes of thought suggest to me that the following pseudocode would be optimal:

while(passed.time < 9.5seconds) {
   outcome = eval(opponent.code(self.code))
   if (outcome == "C") { c.count++ }
   if (outcome == "D") { d.count++ }
}

if (c.count > d.count) {
  output("C")
} else {
   output("D")
}

Deterministic programs would always output the same thing so you know beforehand whether they'll cooperate or defect. For RNG-based programs you just bet on what's most likely.

I welcome big guns blowing large holes in this construction :-)

P.S. How do I indent in preformatted code?

I just realized...

Actually running your opponent, and passing it a fake version of its own source code is a bad idea-if it notices, it can call either forkbomb() or loopforever() as needed.

Incidentially, are you sure you want to run the whole thing as winner-take-all? My fisheries class a while back ran a delayed-effect prisoners dilemma over the matter of fish sustainability... except that it was actually a zero-sum game because there was only ONE extra credit point, with winner take all.

Halfway through, after the fish were extinct and my team-which had the most boats-was losing due to boat-upkeep costs, I singlehandedly turned the whole thing into a game about market manipulation by running a pyramid scheme involving the boats. (I still lost because I forgot to keep exponentially buying more boats with loans from the bank, but oh well...)

Alas, I won't be competing. (and if I do, I'll just throw out a mimicbot...) Keep it in mind, though, if you set another one up.