In the future, everyone will have a detailed psychological simulation model of all their interaction partners, which can predict their responses with high accuracy. Negotiations will be simulated and tuned by bouncing models off each other, later the simulation becomes recursive.
Think of it like playing chess. If both players can look father ahead, it may not change the distribution of wins to losses, but it will raise the level of the game. The next moves *will* become more predictable, and since the real world is not zero sum, outcomes increase too.
-
-
Chess allows both for total information and provides only for a limited amount of possible actions. Let's assume "total information" breaks down. What keeps the simulation from becoming paranoid because it's interpreting random events meaningfully?
-
I used the example of chess because you normally cannot look at the decision tree exhaustively. You will have heuristics, but these can become almost arbitrarily good. There is no reason for paranoia if you do your statistics correctly.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.