|
|
|
|
|
by dvt
2069 days ago
|
|
As someone that studied Game Theory (and philosophy, for that matter) at graduate levels, there's quite a lot wrong with this post, and I just want to reiterate what @georgeglue1 said: Matt Jackson is quite literally a leading expert and the paper is actually very good for how terse it is. The kinds of exercises you'd do in a Game Theory class are pretty on par with what you see in the paper itself. You would end up answering questions like: What are the dominant strategies? Do any equillibria exist? What's the Nash Equilibrium? What outcome is Pareto optimal (if any)? What's the expected utility of a particular pure strategy? Mixed strategy? Etc. Anyway, to address your comment, just on a very basic level, Phillipa Foot's "Trolley Problem" is unequivocally not a game theoretic problem. It's in the family of ethical "no-win" puzzles a la "Sophie's Choice" and has little to do with the actual study of game theoretic strategies, outcomes, and equillibria. The "Tragedy of the Commons" is also not game theoretic. There have been some attempts at turning it into an iterated game (in the formal sense), but -- again -- it's not technically a game theoretic problem, and rather a question on social policy. Elinor Ostrom famously provided a non-game theoretic solution to the Tragedy, so bringing her up is just confusing. > At the core of game theory, and human civilization is communication and trust. The abuse of mass media to manipulate populations knows the power of communication and cultural narratives, and we're witnessing what's often described in terms such as "hypernormalization" or "accelerationism" And I have no idea what the hell this means. It looks like gibberish and has nothing to do with the (relatively narrow) scope of Game Theory as a field. |
|
For computational optimization, the von Neumann game theory terms are applied to actual logic systems and we end up with computer vision optimizations and video/audio codec best guess optimizations, or some interesting applications of evolutionary computing [4] in verifiable applications like signal optimization in antenna design [5] or industrial manufacturing techniques and structural integrity or architectural optimizations via generative design [6] in software [7] like generative computer automated design, ie Fusion 360 or Grasshopper [8].
Rudimentary modeling with von Neumann game theory fails to account for variables in reality, like the ambiguity effect and in applications like optimization of social choices like economic modeling or voting i.e. Gibbard's theorem. There's often situations where game theory fails to account for an adversarial evasion of the rule set - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagame_analysis
If the primitive von Neumann game theory models were used to train an artificial intelligence system that controlled military weapons, there would have been global thermal nuclear winter in several decision making "games" like the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity_aversion
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_game_theory
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computing
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_Design
[7] https://fab.cba.mit.edu/classes/865.18/design/generative/ind...
[8] https://www.engineering.com/DesignSoftware/DesignSoftwareArt...