Prisoner's Dilemma

epgc3fyqirnbsx

A classic example of the prisoner's dilemma (PD) is presented as follows:

Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated the prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies for the prosecution against the other (defects) and the other remains silent (cooperates), the defector goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?

-wiki

So, that's the prisoners dilemma. What would you do?

Personally I wouldn't get caught in the first place but, seeing as this is hypothetical, if it did happen I would...

I actually don't know

And let's suppose that you have never met the other suspect
If he/she was a mate I'd like to think we'd both stay silent

Cakes.

Have you ever been far even as decided to ?
















:P

policarp

I'd squeal like a pig...

Mardy Bum

Golden Balls is a great example of it. Betrayal is the best choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVi7XQP-wDU

orourkeda

If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

Sinfonia

If you betray, you either go free or get 5 years
If you remain silent, you either get 6 months or 10 years

So betrayal is the best option.

However, the other person should also choose betrayal, meaning that the most likely outcome is that both people get 5 years.
Also, assuming that the other person does choose betrayal, as they should, you have to choose betrayal to avoid a 10 year sentence.

mawk

mmmm, delicious game theory

mondeoman1708

You've seen it on telly, the bad guys always queal.

Mind you, the good guys being tortured by the Viet Cong or whatever never talk. I suppose it depends on how good you are (and how good you think the other guy is)

Wolfe Tone

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Golden Balls is a great example of it. Betrayal is the best choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVi7XQP-wDU

bitch

L.Jenkins

That's classic game theory. Check it out on wiki aswell.

sligopark

Sienna Calm Write-off wrote: »

-wiki

So, that's the prisoners dilemma. What would you do?

Personally I wouldn't get caught in the first place but, seeing as this is hypothetical, if it did happen I would...

I actually don't know

And let's suppose that you have never met the other suspect
If he/she was a mate I'd like to think we'd both stay silent

Ah slasher is this an AH troll - this situation was common place in N. Ireland and when not actually the truth was often used agianst detainees to get evidence when it was never true.

come on something better I am getting bored and thinking of bed ..

cc-offe

Sienna Calm Write-off wrote: »

-wiki

So, that's the prisoners dilemma. What would you do?

Personally I wouldn't get caught in the first place but, seeing as this is hypothetical, if it did happen I would...

I actually don't know

And let's suppose that you have never met the other suspect
If he/she was a mate I'd like to think we'd both stay silent

In real life if you both accused the other then you'd both get off wouldn't you?

epgc3fyqirnbsx

sligopark wrote: »

Ah slasher is this an AH troll - this situation was common place in N. Ireland and when not actually the truth was often used agianst detainees to get evidence when it was never true.

come on something better I am getting bored and thinking of bed ..

eh, it's just a question. Should you not like to participate I am rather fond of Moonlight Sonata and if you could oblige I would greatly appreciate it

amacachi

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Golden Balls is a great example of it. Betrayal is the best choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVi7XQP-wDU

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

bitch

I'll never know how he didn't lamp her one. Also I think that episode was all contestants who'd been on before and chose split and had all the money taken by someone else.

Pete M.

Sssshhhhh sligopark,say nathin I tells ya.......


hooray 500 posts. Only took me 8 years and 9 months

TeddyTedson

I certainly wouldn't grass up anyway.

EverEvolving

Well if the criminals in the situation are worth their salt they will know that the police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, so they should both deny everything.

I know if I done anything illegal and it came back to bite me in the ass I would deny all and rely on the proof beyond reasonable doubt theory, and make sure there was enough reasonable doubt to save me.

Nash's Equilibrium is used for nuclear weapons aswell.. Pretty interestin.

Trog

Even if you're innocent Apparent;y you should NEVER talk.

In absence of any kind of knowledge of the other guy, the value bet is with talking:


If you blab:
And they do, you get 5 years,
And they don't, you get nothing.

If you don't:
And they do, you get 10 years
And they don't, you get 6 months.

But, if you're a gambler, or you value your faith in other people over your personal gain, then you're gonna take the outside bet of not talking.

Personally, I wouldn't talk.

Capt'n Midnight

Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation.

Both are offered the same deal so it's pretty obvious that someone snitched if one of them is let out early.


Seeing as how this is Ireland "Whatever you say, say nothing."

bonerm

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Golden Balls is a great example of it. Betrayal is the best choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVi7XQP-wDU

Beytral is a good choice but the best choice is to Shaft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzZ86GYoxE0

phantom_lord

Nash equilibrium is to talk.

Trog wrote: »

Even if you're innocent Apparent;y you should NEVER talk.

That's not relevant to our jurisdiction though. Here inferences can be taken from your silence, and in certain circumstances it can be an offence not to answer questions.

The Waltzing Consumer

I don't understand. The example says that the police have insufficent evidence for a conviction, so why does it then say if both prisoners stay silent, they will be convicted.

Surely, if they do not get one of the prisoners to testify, then the insufficent evidence still counts, and both prisoners will be released.

phantom_lord

Spencer Hissing Beach wrote: »

There is talk about that law being draconian and in contravention of some european fundamental something or other (I'm sure someone knows what I am on about).

Article 6 of the ECHR. There's a lot of factors involved but the short answer is it isn't, and the ECHR doesn't really have that much importance. It's controversial alright but was upheld in the Supreme Court in Heaney v Ireland.

Spencer Hissing Beach wrote: »

I think* what you mean is only to do with withholding info for murder cases and that? The one about no right to silence was the controversial one.

It's section 52 of the offences against the state act.

Jonybgud

You're missing the "kill them all and walk out a free man" option.

Ghandee

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Golden Balls is a great example of it. Betrayal is the best choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVi7XQP-wDU

I would have split!


















That lowdown bitches head clean open!
What a fcukin cow!!!

Rabble Rabble

Trog wrote: »

Even if you're innocent Apparent;y you should NEVER talk.

:

Thats a real amazing video. Anybody intending to live in the US should watch it. Do not ever talk to the American Police.

( Or anyone who thinks that Martha Stewart is a felon).

However not relevant to Game Theory.

KilOit

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Golden Balls is a great example of it. Betrayal is the best choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVi7XQP-wDU

Gah! wish you never posted that, i would always split, i just couldn't look friends and family in the eyes after something like that.

KnifeWRENCH

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Golden Balls is a great example of it. Betrayal is the best choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVi7XQP-wDU

Good for her tbh. He was far too gullible and trusting; she made him look her in the eye and promise to split while he was too trusting of her and didn't make her do the same thing.

If I was on that show, I'd always steal. If the other person spilts, then you get everything. But if the other person steals too, at least you have the satisfaction of knowing that you both lose, whereas splitting and having the other steal would be unbearable.

As for the prisoner dilemma, I'd probably work along the same principles and testify against the other. Freedom or 5 years vs. 6 months or 10 years - there's nothing to be gained from co-operating. It's worth the risk of a 5 year sentence if you get your freedom.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Good friends will come and bail you out of jail.

But best friends will be sharing a cell with you saying, "man, we messed up baaad!"

Stay silent ftw.