Posts
Comments
This seems like the kind of thing that could be hosted in a place like Próspera. I believe the ZEDE law was very recently repealed, but I have yet to hear that the Próspera project is stopping and the constitutional amendment could be repealed next year. Próspera claims it will be proceeding and international law/treaties and it's 50 year stability agreements protect it. https://prospera.hn/news/press-releases/built-to-last-legal-stability-in-the-zede-framework
It seems too early, but if Próspera survives this most recent political shift in Honduras, then it would prove to be protected from the political whims of Honduras (and its legal framwork already prevents changes in taxes or regulations even with a democratic majority. A betting market could thrive in such a stable environment, and possibly allow for longer term bets. Also the legal framework for businesses is very streamlined. https://prospera.hn/business
It might just be my wishful thinking and political biases showing, but if Próspera can prove to be resilient to changes in Honduras, I think it could become pretty close to Dath Ilan, or help other countries become closer to it. Positive signs are things like Minicircle, a reversible gene therapy company conducting trials in Próspera because they are easier to do there than the US. https://minicircle.clinic/
Policymakers
A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting it, but the scorpion promises not to, pointing out that it would drown if it killed the frog in the middle of the river. The frog agrees to transport the scorpion. Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence, and the scorpion replies: "I am sorry, but I couldn't resist the urge. It's in my nature."
-Fable
We are the frog, and the nature of our future AI scorpions must be figured out or we all may die, or worse.
Also there is a lot of confirmation bias. I don't remember hearing any friends telling me someone they know died of Covid, but I have heard one say someone they know died right after getting the vaccine and another complaining about what they think are symptoms of vaccination and say their PCP has not been treating them seriously.
I bet there have been covid deaths of a friend of a friend, but that is a lot less notable to them or me compared to a potential death due to the vaccine. I wish I had recorded every covid/vax death/problem so I wasn't just relying on my faulty memory.
Similarly what I have seen from by my friends and acquaintances is.
- Disease breaks out.
- Public health authorities/pharmaceutical companies push a new vaccine and claim it is X% effective/prevents the spread.
- Later it is found to be less effective than initially promised/new variants make it less effective and boosters are now announced as needed.
- People feel lied to, believing they were originally told vaccine was more effective than evidence shows it is/the fact that restrictions are still in place with the vaccine makes reduces its credibility in their eyes.
"I'm a rationalist."
JKJK
Thanks for the explanation.
Someone please correct me if my interpretation of food and reproduction are incorrect as my programing experience is limited.
I see the energy being reduced by 20%, but what is the threshold for death?
The number of offspring is determined by rolling a number between 0 and 1 rolled 10 * creature energy times, and for each random number less than 1 / (body size x 10), a baby is created with the same energy as the original creature and no impact on the original creature?
I think I am missing where predator efficiency is accounted for.
In line 163/164:
(reproduce (. [organism-0 organism-1] [fight-flight-result]
(energy-of (. [organism-1 organism-1] [fight-flight-result])
does this mean reproduction of organism-1 and organism-0 is only dependent on the body size of organism-1? no impact of stored energy?
I have always wondered how high we can push the voltage on transmission lines. Maybe carbon nanotubes being as conductive as copper but lighter and stronger than aluminum could allow significant transmission of electricity across time zones, stretching out the load and allowing solar to power dark areas for some time without increasing storage. Transmission towers would need to get obscenely large, but the lighter lines would a allow for fewer of them.
In terms of electricity, transmission and distribution make up 13% and 31% of costs respectively. Even if solar panels were free, I am not confident that reliable electricity would become 10x cheaper as unless each house as quite a few days of storage cheaply, they would still need distribution. Industrial electricity might approach that cheap, but I think it would depend on location and space availability otherwise at least some of the transmission and distribution costs would still exist.
See my other comment for BeauBot's code. Below round 10 BeauBot starts 2, then from 10 to 29 it alternates 2 and 3 as starting bid, and 30 and beyond it always starts with 3.
I tried to make my bot never be outscored past round 29 but I believe if my opponent bids three when BeauBot bids 3 in the first round, Beaubot will bid 2 in attempts to cooperate making it possible for opponents to outscore it.
I am flattered you called my bot sophisticated. I think its is partly a function of my circuitous and inexperienced coding more so than needed complexity. The code is below:
class BeauBot():
# bot attempts to cooperate and will even risk three points here and there in early rounds
# if other bot defects in later rounds, BeauBot will bid 4's until other bot bids 1
def __init__(self, round=0):
self.round = round
self.turn = 0
self.myPrevious = None
self.theirPrevious = None
self.strategy = None
def move(self, previous=None):
# sets starting bid to be 2 in before round 10,
# alternating 2 and 3 between rounds 10 and 30, and 3 in later rounds
self.turn += 1
self.theirPrevious = previous
if self.theirPrevious == None:
if self.round < 10:
self.myPrevious = 2
return self.myPrevious
elif self.round < 30:
self.myPrevious = self.round % 2 + 2
return self.myPrevious
else:
self.myPrevious = 3
return self.myPrevious
else:
self.myPrevious = self.strategyPicker()
return self.myPrevious
def strategyPicker(self):
# chooses between 3 simple strategies to use based on current strategy and previous bids
if self.theirPrevious == 1 or self.theirPrevious == 2 and self.strategy != 'hard': # will always cooperate if other bot bids low if not using hard strategy
return self.titForTat()
elif self.theirPrevious == 3 or self.strategy == 'titForTat': # if in tit for tat strategy, will allow higher numbers to be alternated
if self.strategy == 'titForTat' or (self.myPrevious == 3 and self.round < 11): # will only cooperate with 3 bids if self.myPrevious was 3
return self.titForTat()
else:
if self.round < 5: # bot will be try to get points from aggressors in early rounds
self.strategy = 'soft'
return self.soft()
else:
self.strategy = None
return 3
else:
if self.round < 5:
self.strategy = 'soft'
return self.soft()
else:
self.strategy = 'hard'
return self.hard()
def titForTat(self):
#will copy opponent move if self.theirPrevious sum = 5, will try to fix if bids not adding to 5,
#will switch out of tit for tat if opponent continues high bids
if self.theirPrevious + self.myPrevious == 5: # could allow for 4-1 alternating bids only if opponent bids 1 when bot was bidding 4 (from hard strategy)
self.strategy = 'titForTat'
return self.theirPrevious
elif self.theirPrevious + self.myPrevious < 5:
self.strategy = 'titForTat'
return self.theirPrevious + self.turn % 2 # only tries to correct every other round in case other bot is also correcting for underbiding in cooperation
elif self.theirPrevious + self.myPrevious > 5: # will not cooperate will not continue tit for tat if a 3 bid is made after failing to cooperate in the self.theirPrevious round
self.strategy = None
if self.myPrevious > 2:
return 2
else:
if self.round < 5:
self.strategy = 'soft'
return self.soft()
else:
self.strategy = 'hard'
return self.hard()
def soft(self):
#will bid 1 or 2 if opponent bids 4 or 3 respectively, only to be used in early rounds
#intended to get early growth by feeding bullies and attackers early
# will switch to titFortat if other bot bids low
if self.theirPrevious > 2 and self.theirPrevious < 5:
return 5 - self.theirPrevious
elif self.theirPrevious < 3:
self.strategy = 'titForTat'
return self.theirPrevious
return 1
def hard(self):
# will return 4 as long as opponent does not return 1
# if opponent returns 1, the extra 4 points should be enough buffer to attempt cooperation again
if self.theirPrevious == 1:
self.strategy = 'titForTat'
return 2
else:
self.strategy == 'hard'
return 4Wouldn't three-bot only get a few points against tit-for-tat bots? I agree it can't do worse than its opponent (meaning it would at worst tie if it is one of the last two bots), but bots that can cooperate or even two-bot could be raking in a lot more points as long as the population of bots isn't dominated by three-bot.
For example, in a given round if three-bot is versing tit for tat, it might get a few points right away and then no more, but in that same round, two tit for tat bots or a tit for tat and a two-bot are getting a comparatively large amount of points meaning they will dominate later rounds so I think two-bot is a better simple strategy than three-bot (granted it will not win).
Along with ice melting, the other main cause of sea level rise is the thermal expansion of ocean water. Until more recently, the two effects were about equal in magnitude.