Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

cjohnson.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 212 posts

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#151

Post by dropit_sphere »

yomritoyj wrote: post #66

The author is seriously mistaken about game theory. The Nash Equilibrium requires every player to be maximizing their payoffs given what the other players are doing. But game theory itself does not say what the nature of the payoffs are: there is no problem in modelling altruistic players who attach a high payoff to outcomes which are good for everyone and low payoffs to outcomes which benefit only themselves. The Pa…

> there is no problem in modelling altruistic players who attach a high payoff to outcomes which are good for everyone and low payoffs to outcomes which benefit only themselves.

Isn't this something of a contradiction in terms?

But say it's not. Aren't such players likely to die out in a lot of ecologies? Deriving utility from helping others won't stop you from starving.

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#152

Post by dragonwriter »

dropit_sphere wrote: post #151
yomritoyj wrote: post #66

The author is seriously mistaken about game theory. The Nash Equilibrium requires every player to be maximizing their payoffs given what the other players are doing. But game theory itself does not say what the nature of the payoffs are: there is no problem in modelling altruistic players who attach a high payoff to outcomes which are good for everyone and low payoffs to outcomes which benefit only themselves. The Pa…

> there is no problem in modelling altruistic players who attach a high payoff to outcomes which are good for everyone and low payoffs to outcomes which benefit only themselves. Isn't this something of a contradiction in terms? But say it's not. Aren't such players likely to die out in a lot of ecologies? Deriving utility from helping others won't stop you from starving.

> Aren't such players likely to die out in a lot of ecologies? Deriving utility from helping others won't stop you from starving.

It might, as it gives other (selfish) actors a reason to prefer you to survive over a selfish competitor (other than themself.)

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#153

Post by yomritoyj »

dropit_sphere wrote: post #151
yomritoyj wrote: post #66

The author is seriously mistaken about game theory. The Nash Equilibrium requires every player to be maximizing their payoffs given what the other players are doing. But game theory itself does not say what the nature of the payoffs are: there is no problem in modelling altruistic players who attach a high payoff to outcomes which are good for everyone and low payoffs to outcomes which benefit only themselves. The Pa…

> there is no problem in modelling altruistic players who attach a high payoff to outcomes which are good for everyone and low payoffs to outcomes which benefit only themselves. Isn't this something of a contradiction in terms? But say it's not. Aren't such players likely to die out in a lot of ecologies? Deriving utility from helping others won't stop you from starving.

It is not necessarily a contradiction as long as you accept the existence of two different ways of ranking outcomes: one for desirability and one for decision-making. When a cake is being shared I may want to eat the whole cake alone, but I may still offer you half the cake out of a sense of fairness. For the predictions of game theory it is the decision-making ranking and not the desirability one which enters into payoffs.

If you deny the meaningfulness of talking about different ways of ranking then of course any notion of altruism becomes self-contradictory: "He gains enjoyment by starving himself to feed the poor, that's why he does it." But in practice we distinguish between masochists and saints.

Helping others may help you survive if selfish people are ostracized by others (as seem to happen in human societies) or if a good turn today entitles you to a good turn tomorrow. But the evolutionary theory of altruism is not something I understand very well. My only point was that contrary to what the OP suggests, the formal techniques of game theory such as Nash equilibrium are agnostic with respect to nature of payoffs. And both casual observation and systematic experiments in economics show that many humans act out of a sense of fairness and expect fairness from others even when interacting with strangers.

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#154

Post by Spooky23 »

xianshou wrote: post #49
nostromo wrote: post #14

I've been thinking of patents as nukes during the Cold War lately. Superpowers (US/USSR, Apple/Google) acquire very large nuclear/patent arsenals under the guise of protection/defense. These arsenals are relatively cheap for superpowers to build, but they are expensive for small states (small countries/small businesses) to acquire. The US and USSR were roughly equivalent in their arsenals so it made little sense for…

Interestingly, this analogy works very much at the company level, but reverses at the country level. For companies, patents represent weapons in an arsenal, in which MAD prevents offensive action, as you've said. For countries, the reverse holds: a country that jettisons its patent architecture, or never evolved a restrictive one to begin with, will be a bastion for innovators. The stable equilibrium is no bad patent…

I think you need to append "for software or business methods" liberally.

For products where development costs dwarf manufacturing costs, patents provide the incentive to do stuff. Would anyone invest a few billion into a drug if anyone with access to a few million bucks could go manufacture it?

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#156

Post by metaphorm »

Spooky23 wrote: post #154
xianshou wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, this analogy works very much at the company level, but reverses at the country level. For companies, patents represent weapons in an arsenal, in which MAD prevents offensive action, as you've said. For countries, the reverse holds: a country that jettisons its patent architecture, or never evolved a restrictive one to begin with, will be a bastion for innovators. The stable equilibrium is no bad patent…

I think you need to append "for software or business methods" liberally. For products where development costs dwarf manufacturing costs, patents provide the incentive to do stuff. Would anyone invest a few billion into a drug if anyone with access to a few million bucks could go manufacture it?

software is a product where development costs (designing the product, writing the code) dwarf manufacturing cost (compiling the code, deploying the executables).

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#159

Post by Florin_Andrei »

carsongross wrote: post #5

The only hope is cultural change. The only hope is cultural trust , and the only way to achieve that is to allow like-minded individuals to separate themselves into autonomous political units. This is dangerous thinking Chris, if you start following these thoughts through to the end, rather than spinning off into happy-clappy "change the world's heart" wishing...

> The only hope is cultural trust, and the only way to achieve that is to allow like-minded individuals to separate themselves into autonomous political units

...and the reason why you're separating is because you don't trust anyone else.

Nice.

Post reply on HN