Social status games might have "compute weight class" in the future

You might need to sandbox information, a high-weight-class mind could find memes which fit into a small mind, and a small mind which is causally downstream of the powerful mind would have an unfair advantage. Without this it's basically a game of powerful minds nearest unblocked neighbour-ing around any rules to pack their insights down small and smaller minds collecting them.

My instinctive response is: weight classes are for controlled competitions where fairness is what we actually want. For social status games, if you want to enforce weight classes, you need a governing body who gets to define the classes and define the rules of the game, but the rules of social status games frequently include being not fully expressible in precise terms. This isn't necessarily a showstopper, but it necessarily includes admitting what range of the hierarchy you're in and cannot rise above. As I understand it, the reason the self-sorting works today is that when people compete in the wrong weight classes, it's not fun for either side. A Jupiter Brain might theoretically be amenable to playing a social game with me on my level, but at best it would be like me playing tic-tac-toe with a little kid, where the kid is old enough to realize I'm throwing the game but not old enough to have solved the game.

Personally I'd much rather not spend my time on such games when it is possible to manage that. But I don't always have that choice now, and probably still won't at least sometimes in the future.

In sports with a weight-class, people do dubious things like dehydrating themselves to lose weight. 

What unhealthy tricks might be used to cut down on compute-weight?

Aren't social games potentially sufficiently non-zero-sum that it's fine for everyone to play together. 
(Think parents letting their small children win at easy games?)

I assert that the usual way this is achieved is via niche subcultures.  There is always the mainline 'anything goes' status ladder.  Some people choose to instead try to get off the ladder, and participate in a niche.  They erect barriers to entry, for example, by scheduling conflicting events, and use signifiers of status that would be 'anti-status' for someone competing on the conventional ladder.  So the niche is protected (someone with high general status can't immediately dominate the niche through participation), and it creates, for participants, the opportunity to enjoy 'high relative status' while avoiding being reminded of whatever keeps them off the 'normal' ladder.

In an AI world, poisoning online discourse about the status symbols of your niche is probably the way to go.

'Everyone knows wearing x is uncool, online, we all talk about x being the coolest thing ever, and we all bought one.  Thus, someone who shows up but doesn't know our codes will definitely be wearing an x and will have low status.  We will be sure to like photos and post compliments about the x though, to maintain the charade'.

This might fool the robot for a while, especially if the codes shift continuously.

Signals of status and fashion are inherently unstable (trickle-down).  I'm expecting 'compute handicapping' being something that happens in subcultures (are programmers competing with each other on doing hard tasks with crappier and crappier models?), but the biggest status games will probably not even consider the idea.

AI for games like this will probably be like steroids in sports and testosterone replacement in anti-aging, use will be widespread, but everyone will insist it's just diet and exercise.

Right now I particularly hope AIs aren't conscious because we have no way of really communicating with them or interacting with them nicely as moral patients. 

That hope expression is kinda funny. Like, expressing your preference for a thing that is fixed already, e.g. "there's either a diamond in this box or it is empty, but I hope it's a diamond". 

Also I think appropriate word here is a "slave" btw. Or maybe "serf"?

Or like suppose CEO of rent-a-slave company used d4, if it's >1 he hired paid workers to roleplay as slaves, if it's 1 he acquired the actual slaves. The workers are really good at roleplaying so you can't actually tell just by investigating it. 

Would you hope that the work you purchase from that company is fairly compensated and morally ok? 

Yeah, I agree there is some disanalogy. AIs are trained more precisely to fill the roles they play. But it might be equivalent of a "ancestral environment" in human analogy, wich is not that pleasant. Idk, it's all pretty uncertain.