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

Non-Zero-Sum Games

nonzerosum.games

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 218 posts

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#141

Post by jmward01 »

benlivengood wrote: post #129
jmward01 wrote: post #118

One thing I have always thought was missing in game theory (and it is probably there but I just haven't looked hard enough) is a mathematical framework for how to build trust to increase the infinite payout for everyone. If in the decision making the idea of an offering is added in then it brings up the possibility of gauging trust and building trust so that future actions can capture more value until an optimal infi…

With an optimal way of determining fair splitting of gains like Shapley value[0] you can cooperate or defect with a probability that maximizes other participants expected value when everyone act fairly. The ultimatum game is the simplest example; N dollars of prize to split, N/2 is fair, accept with probability M / (N /2) where M is what's offered to you; the opponents maximum expected value comes from offering N/2;…

Thanks. I'll take a look!

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#142

Post by zahlman »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #101
MontyCarloHall wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The conflict is not a disagreement over effectiveness. It's a misalignment between meritocracy and equity. A lot of proponents of affirmative action will agree with this. They'll explicitly acknowledge that people admitted under AA will be underqualified, due to factors mentioned in the article: [Minorities] may lack foundational skills (taken for granted in more affluent households and schools) and therefore might…

Singapore does the whole "race based quotas for everything" and they have by many metrics, the best standard of living in the entire world. It turns out that the government forcing racial integration actually works! Being a "quota ridden society" would be good for America.

> Singapore does the whole "race based quotas for everything"

By American constructions of race, almost everyone in Singapore is of the same race.

Even going by genetically objective ethnicity, almost three quarters of people in Singapore are Han Chinese. It's not remotely comparable to the American situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_in_Singapore

> and they have by many metrics, the best standard of living in the entire world.

As self-reported by people from cultures that happen to share common values. They rate higher on HDI than the US, sure; but so does the UAE, and Slovenia is almost as high. They're unusually wealthy per capita, but so is Ireland (capitalist shell games). And there are a lot of things the average American probably wouldn't like about that society, e.g. the strict rules against littering and the threat of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore .

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#143

Post by zozbot234 »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #69
SapporoChris wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If capitalism is zero sum then how do countries with capitalism manage to succeed and grow for hundreds of years?

By pillaging and conquering nations that have abundant resources through violence and coercion Like this is the entire history of capitalism and it’s not even close the fact that other organizations (USSR, China) do the same thing (horde property and then use consolidated resources to enforce economic heirarchy) but don’t call it capitalism doesn’t make it any less true They can say “communism” all day but if the fun…

> By pillaging and conquering nations that have abundant resources through violence and coercion

That's pretty much backwards. The industrial revolution was the first time in human history where people could get rich on a very large scale via some way other than pillage and conquest. If you think "capitalism" started in the late 18th century and is essentially coterminous with industry (which is quite nonsensical since you had forms of capital as far back as ancient farming societies, but that's the way many scholars choose to use the term) that's exactly what let us choose something that was not plunder and conquest.

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#144

Post by AndrewKemendo »

when_creaks wrote: post #131
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans can’t convert sun energy into biological energy. We aren’t plants. However we eat plants and we eat the things that eat plants. So do you consider plants and animals part of your environment or not? Is the basic requirements for having an economy being a set of humans in a society that has language and culture and exchange? There’s no free lunch Human activity takes from the non-human environment. Under an abs…

In your opinion which society / nation / government in human history is closest to your ideal of how things should be?

Closest seems to be the mondragon cooperative

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#145

Post by elliotto »

jmward01 wrote: post #140
elliotto wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the TCP backoff algorithm, specifically the slow start to find the optimal bandwidth. In your analogy, it would find the optimal amount that a person is willing to reciprocate. Not only does this algorithm exist, but we're using it to communicate right now! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_congestion_control

I have noticed this algorithm in many places which is why I think it is a missing piece in game theory and why formalizing it could be powerful. People use this instinctively in their interactions with others and algorithms (like the one you pointed out) have been created using the basic concept so a formalization of the math is likely in order. Consider the question of how big the offering should be. What if all par…

Yes, this is AIMD and it's well formalised and understood.

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#146

Post by anon84873628 »

Aurornis wrote: post #30
anon84873628 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you disagree that some critics of AA are committing that fallacy? AA is being used as an example of the failure mode where: "The failure of a single component does not mean the program is fatally flawed; rather, it highlights the need for a comprehensive, coordinated approach" Indeed, I'm sure the author would agree that part of the comprehensive solution is to increase the amount of university admission slots.

That feels more like a cop-out than a legitimate criticism of a fallacy. If the author could propose an affirmative action program that didn’t have that “single component” at the core of how it operates then I’d be more interested in the argument, but as-is it just feels like an attempt to forcefully ignore valid criticisms.

The "single component" in this example is scholarships. The goal is successful education outcomes for minorities. The other measures required for success are to fix the things the article mentions about why the students are still dropping out, besides tuition. I.e. the program would be comprehensive beyond just admissions slots.

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#147

Post by kashyapc »

zozbot234 wrote: post #87
kashyapc wrote: post #63

The article on "effortocracy"[1] is pretty very well done. Quoting the end of the article: "... if you take anything away from this, it is to recognise that if meritocracy is based on achievement only, then we must be sure not to confuse it with effortocracy when it comes to its moral weight." Related reading: The Tyranny of Merit , by Michael Sandel (I was hoping the article would reference this, and it does.) [1] h…

I don't think we actually want an effortocracy. Why should we aim to reward pointless, Sisyphean tasks at the expense of actual achievement? There's no inherent moral worth to futile effort that doesn't actually yield any reward, regardless of how laborious it might be.

> Why should we aim to reward pointless, Sisyphean tasks at the expense of actual achievement?

Of course that would be ridiculous. You're trivializing the author's point. I'm not sure you've actually read the article in full. The author admits the difficulty in measuring it and that we may have to rely on "non-scientific" measurements.

Many of the tech robber barons and VCs (who call themselves "angels") carry the air of "my winnings are entirely of my own making". They rarely acknowledge the role of good fortune (in various aspects) in any meaningful way.

They inhale their success too deeply, as Michael Sandel memorably puts it.

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#148

Post by missinglugnut »

kashyapc wrote: post #63

The article on "effortocracy"[1] is pretty very well done. Quoting the end of the article: "... if you take anything away from this, it is to recognise that if meritocracy is based on achievement only, then we must be sure not to confuse it with effortocracy when it comes to its moral weight." Related reading: The Tyranny of Merit , by Michael Sandel (I was hoping the article would reference this, and it does.) [1] h…

I thought that article was impractical and totally divorced from reality.

Effort can't be fairly measured so in practice the attempts toward "effortocracy" always seem to replace objective systems with a mess of human biases.

Look at college admissions: instead of SAT scores colleges want to look at skin color and how sympathetic your essays sound. That doesn't measure how much a person has overcome in life, it measures a person by how they fit in to the admissions office's prejudices.

The merit based approach, giving academic opportunity to people with a history of academic success, isn't as fair as we want, but it is useful. Broken, gameable, biased measures of effort are neither fair nor useful.

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#149

Post by verteu »

BeetleB wrote: post #102
skibidithink wrote: post #11

Lots of interesting insights, but their affirmative action take is a miss. > Critics of affirmative action often commit the fallacy of letting a failure in one area doom the entire enterprise. This ignores the interdependent nature of affirmative action. [1] Affirmative action sets up a zero-sum game where fixed resources like university admissions and employment offers are redistributed to people with the "correct"…

> Affirmative action sets up a zero-sum game where fixed resources like university admissions and employment offers are redistributed to people with the "correct" demographics. I wish I could find the source, but the vast majority of universities don't have a fixed admissions quota. They are criteria based (if you meet the criteria, you get in). In principle, AA admissions did not prevent others from getting a seat.…

CA Prop 209 is a good natural experiment: https://reappropriate.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Total-UC...

Re: Non-Zero-Sum Games

#150

Post by anon84873628 »

skibidithink wrote: post #34
anon84873628 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you disagree that some critics of AA are committing that fallacy? AA is being used as an example of the failure mode where: "The failure of a single component does not mean the program is fatally flawed; rather, it highlights the need for a comprehensive, coordinated approach" Indeed, I'm sure the author would agree that part of the comprehensive solution is to increase the amount of university admission slots.

Even if some critics of AA are committing that fallacy, debunking a weaker argument when a stronger argument exists is ineffective. The implicit argument is that AA's largest challenge is a coordination problem. It's not. It's a clash in values and a fight over zero-sum rewards.

The argument is that critics of AA are committing the Fallacy of Composition. Specifically when saying that since giving out scholarships doesn't result in equal educational outcomes, then we should stop giving out scholarships.

I am with the author on this one. Creating better educational outcomes (for all students) is a coordination problem.

Post reply on HN