Raw LLM Responses

>From the hoarder’s perspective, there is no dilemma of everyone cooperating being better than everyone defecting. The hoarder just wins by hoarding even if everybody else hoards as well, as long as they do it after him. Period. True! But it's that "as long as they do it after him" part that's the kicker. Timing is absolutely important in such examples. The classic PD doesn't allow for this - each prisoner makes his choice simultaneously with the other. In this example, if you are to defect, you have to defect FIRST. That only gives you more motivation to defect, because if you don't, you aren't going to have TP. And once you have defected, you don't give a damn about the other players. ​ >The only things that are stopping everyone from hoarding in real life are the fear of social repercussions and morality. Also true! Well, mostly true. I don't know if those are the *only* things preventing people from hoarding, but they certainly do the work you're claiming that they do. But these aren't things that turn an otherwise PD game into something else. Those are exactly the kinds of things that push us from mutual defection to mutual cooperation. One thing I want to make clear is that despite mutual defection being the equilibrium state in PD, it's also NOT the state we want to be in. In general, we want to get to the state of mutual cooperation. We have forces that push us from one position to the other. Government intervention is one (such as Hobbes' sovereign), but social repercussions are also up there. Morality is a bit of a gray area... I don't want to dwell on it that much, but I will say that some philosophers claim that morality can be reduced to game theoretic interactions. Is that true? Hell if I know. But if it is, then we can't use morality to explain what's happening within the games. If true, the morality emerges FROM those games.