|
Are there any experts on Game theory out there? Specifically, involving Nash's equilibrium, and the whole concept of how all players will act in a way to attempt to maximize their own individual success. What happens though if one player foregoes maximizing their own chances in order to try to help the other players instead of themselves in the game. Is this an available option? What happens in Game theory if this choice is made?
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
https://www.google.com/search?q=altruism+in+game+theory
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
https://www.google.com/search?q=autism+in+game+theory
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
https://www.wired.com/2016/06/people-want-self-driving-cars-save-lives-especially/all/1quote:So what kind of god do people want as a chauffeur? The study found most people think driverless should minimize the total number of deaths, even at the expense of the occupants. The respondents stuck to that utilitarian thinking, although some decisions were harder than others. “It seems that from the responses people gave us, saving their coworkers was not a priority,” says Jean-Francois Bonnefon of the Toulouse School of Economics. But overall, “do the greater good” always won, even with children in the car.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Thank you  Er, thanks everyone!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
You don't need to understand game theory to use it you fool, just ask any redditor and/or libertarian
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:https://www.wired.com/2016/06/people-want-self-driving-cars-save-lives-especially/all/1 Is it strange that I feel like I would travel/use one of these vehicles, provided the choice that it would save more than it would kill, even if I was in the kill total? There's other people out there that think this way too right? I'm not the only one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Herman Merman posted:You don't need to understand game theory to use it you fool, just ask any redditor and/or libertarian I think I have an understanding of it. It's a concept to help humanity explore why it is so hard to value others over yourself? Or rather, how brave and nice of a thing it is to be willing to give your life in order to help save/preserve a balance of other life, especially if your sacrifice or lack of action only prolongs the hurt. In situations like that the choice of self-sacrifice seems very obvious as the right choice to make, in order to make all the other players whole or happy with the results. I mean, I'm not advocating for people to do out and give till they're bled dry. I'm just speaking in these specific circumstances here, where specific choices avail themselves to the player(s).
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Sunset posted:What happens though if one player foregoes maximizing their own chances in order to try to help the other players instead of themselves in the game. Game theory allows for scenarios where you forego immediate gratification in return for a larger total reward, see the iterated prisoner's dilemma.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Sunset posted:Is it strange that I feel like I would travel/use one of these vehicles, provided the choice that it would save more than it would kill, even if I was in the kill total? There's other people out there that think this way too right? I'm not the only one? i also support your riding in a car that wants to kill you
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
buckminster fuller took cold war era logic and i think some of nash's ideas and tried to create a game where the object of the game was to make sure that no one loses and EVERYONE WINS (Make the world work, for 100% of humanity, in the shortest possible time, through spontaneous cooperation, without ecological offense or the disadvantage of anyone.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Blahsmack posted:buckminster fuller took cold war era logic and i think some of nash's ideas and tried to create a game where the object of the game was to make sure EVERYONE WINS Makes u think. e: nice domes, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Blahsmack posted:buckminster fuller took cold war era logic and i think some of nash's ideas and tried to create a game where the object of the game was to make sure that no one loses and EVERYONE WINS That sounds beautiful. It's what I am hoping for. It's what this enchanted little voice keeps telling me is the only way for the game to be won. Listen to the unicorn. Thank you - I'll have to read up on him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
What people need to start doing is raising their children to feel guilty, worthless and like burdens so they think other people are more valuable than them as they grow up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Nash was a paranoid schizophrenic and his game theory experiments fell flat on his face when he tried it with secretaries at the Rand corporation. Instead of double-crossing each other the girls trusted each other and were fair and honest Pissed Nash off completely
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
EngineerSean posted:Game theory allows for scenarios where you forego immediate gratification in return for a larger total reward, see the iterated prisoner's dilemma. In a very myopic view, yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:https://www.wired.com/2016/06/people-want-self-driving-cars-save-lives-especially/all/1 wow what a crazy discovery they should call it something like "not in my rear yard"
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
i think the op might have brain damage
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Sunset posted:Are there any experts on Game theory out there? Specifically, involving Nash's equilibrium, and the whole concept of how all players will act in a way to attempt to maximize their own individual success. What happens though if one player foregoes maximizing their own chances in order to try to help the other players instead of themselves in the game. Is this an available option? What happens in Game theory if this choice is made? i don't know about nash equilibrium, but i know about GASH equilibrium that's some real game theory son!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
George Orwell paraphrasing Henry George in The Road to Wigan Pier: The world is a raft sailing through space with, potentially, plenty of provisions for everybody; the idea that we must all cooperate and see to it that everyone does his fair share of the work and gets his fair share of the provisions seems so blatantly obvious that one would say that no one could possibly fail to accept it unless he had some corrupt motive for clinging to the present system. From a speech made by Adlai Stevenson to the UN in 1965: We travel together, passengers on a little space ship, dependent on its vulnerable reserves of air and soil; all committed for our safety to its security and peace; preserved from annihilation only by the care, the work, and, I will say, the love we give our fragile craft. We cannot maintain it half fortunate, half miserable, half confident, half despairing, half slave—to the ancient enemies of man—half free in a liberation of resources undreamed of until this day. No craft, no crew can travel safely with such vast contradictions. On their resolution depends the survival of us all. I mean... I'd like to email some 3 letter government organizations and try to help them towards a beautiful future here - but I'm just one person. I don't even know how they would react to me trying to communicate with them. Part of me wonders if they are already one step ahead of me. It wouldn't surprise me at all - to the point that I've been expecting that and tailoring my actions accordingly. Sometimes I wonder if the only reason I'm still around is because it's fairly obvious that I'm not really a threat. I guess the only kind of threat that could be implied is a change on a grand scale. I only ever acquired a BA in Sociology, so...not quite sure yet how to go about it, but the interest to help everyone involved is there. It's from the heart. So what would happen if I tried to communicate with the NSA, the FBI, the CIA. Do they have better things to do beyond listening to a harmless dreamer? I'm not sure they would be interested or not - though on the flipside, I don't want to invite harm of any sort.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Horniest Manticore posted:i don't know about nash equilibrium, but i know about GASH equilibrium Money+Attention+Desire Vs interest. You're loving welcome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Nauta posted:i think the op might have brain damage I was hit on the side of the head while sitting in a middle-swing on a swing set due to a kid sitting on one of the swings to one side of me, who started swinging left and right instead of back and forth. You could be correct, but it was a pretty long time ago, and I feel fairly fine..
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Be the change you wish to see in the *FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT*
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:Be the change you wish to see in the *FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT* And for that matter - why am I only realizing now that my birthday is on Earth Day, April 22. For some reason I've operated under the assumption that Earth Day was on 4/20, for a very long time. I know what you're thinking and what you're going to say. Don't you dare!  But yes, lots of strange things going on lately... Either I'm getting trolled on a massive scale, or there's something silly at work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Sunset posted:But yes, lots of strange things going on lately... Either I'm getting trolled on a massive scale, or there's something silly at work.  if you think you are important enough for some "Grand conspiracy" against you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:
I don't.. I really don't..which is why I'm so confused about what has been going on lately..
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Sunset posted:I don't.. I really don't..which is why I'm so confused about what has been going on lately.. How would I have any knowledge of it? Why don't you tell me what you think is going on?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:How would I have any knowledge of it? It would probably involve straight-up hours of writing, multiple pages of reading. I'm sure it would either be very spot on, or a hoot to read. I'm really not sure how to put the phenomena to words, but it's as if certain books, films, etc and what have you suddenly 'speak' to you in a certain way - or there is a presence that helps alert you to, well....what's 'really' going on, I guess. I'm not exactly sure how else to phrase it. It sounds straight up wacky, I'll admit it first. I don't really feel crazy. I can function fine. It's totally fine if nobody believes me, that's okay. The only thing that matters is that it's pretty well understood that I'm on the 'side' that benefits life in this universe. That's it - I'm on nobody else' side here. So I'm on your side, regardless of who it is that reads this message.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uR5jmI-vAU
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
As a journalist for Kotaku, I flatter myself that I know something about game theory, OP 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Heres some game theory for you. My left nut is prisoner 1, my right nut is prisoner 2. Suck my drat balls bitch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Sunset posted:So I'm on your side, regardless of who it is that reads this message. How can you be so sure?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:In a very myopic view, yes. close enough for phone posting anyway, but isn't that also what the volunteer dilemma addresses? your own maximal solution is one where you don't clean, but if nobody cleans, nobody gets the reward, so it can still be in your best interest to clean up once in a while.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
EngineerSean posted:close enough for phone posting anyway, but isn't that also what the volunteer dilemma addresses? your own maximal solution is one where you don't clean, but if nobody cleans, nobody gets the reward, so it can still be in your best interest to clean up once in a while. You know... This thread is asking me to read things. I don't like homework. I did poo poo today. In your secondary myopic aspect of only taking a 2 vs 2 aspect into consideration, the answer is yes. Stop, recompute for a greater variable then 2 and try again. poo poo starts to get hosed at 4, unless all parties are willing to work towards a prescribed... We already have this thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Why don't you just read a book on it OP?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Game theory is just a fancy way of saying people are pieces of poo poo in general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:You know... Lets take a look at the Stag hunt game VendaGoat From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stag_hunt Now these game theory games can often be applied to real life settings and scenarios - we just use 'stag/hare hunt' to sort of simplify the mechanics. But basically, as in the diagram - the players involved can either choose a choice that maximizes gain based on a fear/security way of thought, that is - 'I can choose a hare for 1 point. If my opponent chooses stag, he gets nothing, therefore I still come out on top with 1 point, and he or she looses.'. Choosing the stag option with such a mindset would imply that the owner of that mindset believes that the other player certainly wouldn't choose the stag as well, for if both players are playing with the desire to win over the other, it could be very likely that that player will choose a hare as well, thereby making me lose, and he/she win. So...yes, with that sort of way of perceiving things, you can be guaranteed a point, and that the chance that you make your opponent lose. You will not have the greater 2 points, but neither will your opponent, and there is a chance your opponent may have nothing at all. But if as a player, you choose to sacrifice 'winning the game' because you feel love instead of fear for the other player, and you hope that they will make the right choice because you truly, truly want them to 'win', in a sense - you choose the stag. If you lose, well...you lose. That's alright in your mind - even if it seems to fly in the face of conventional logic. In this scenario, the other player gets 1 point at the very least, but there is the small chance that the other player might see you with love in their hearts as well instead of fear, and makes the choice of stag as well. If that happens. You both have something happen that never would have been able to happen before - you both get 2 points! Yay. It seems like such an obvious choice to me. Doesn't it to you as well? I could see a very advanced form of life trying to use this sort of puzzle to help other forms of life realize the beautify in such a puzzle and how you come to the solution that has more harmony. Edit: Also, in regard to games involving more than 2 players - my answer would still be the same - the belief in trying to help that player/civilization over time realize the beauty in functioning on a harmony based order between everyone involved. I guess I'd just lose the game a lot. :x Sunset fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Pawn 17 posted:Game theory is just a fancy way of saying people are pieces of poo poo in general. But they don't have to be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
How much does it cost to fill up a VW bus op?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
Sunset posted:Lets take a look at the Stag hunt game VendaGoat Stop reading reddit and go outside your mom's basement and talk to a woman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 00:25
|
|