[hellojesus]

I was asking the Google llm search about why iterative games don't reach their competitive equilibrium the round after revealing the theory. In my example, it was the "guess 2/3 the average game", and I asked it why my class didn't immediately converge to zero after it was explained. The llm said people are lazy and I have autism because I couldn't identify or understand the stopping criteria used by my classmates. I'm still confused.

[Matumio]

How people play those games has to do with cultural norms and expectations, not just mathematics and logic. Same for age verification.

[hellojesus]

But shouldn't the extension of logic be the same in either case, even if there is some premature convergence criteria? I have yet to see someone say age verification is okay because the gov ensure X is the maximum use of the tech. If anything, Public Choice Theory compels the grant that the gov will misuse the data given enough time.

[Matumio]

Hm, if I query the LLM it tells me about cognitive hierarchy theory, and the Keynesian beauty contest. But my point is, humans are not perfectly rational beings, and sometimes for a reason. (Like assuming that there is more uncertainty than the stated rules imply. Or altruistic behaviour that benefits the group as a whole. And we also have a default to imitate each other, see Joseph Henrich's 2016 Book.) Some of those defaults are culturally learned and leak into pure mathematical games (see e.g. the ultimatum game).