This is one of my favorite things on the internet, but it focuses on the positive side of the story which is that groups of people cooperating can defeat a bunch of people who cheat each other. That's a pleasant message.
Unfortunately, I think the corollary is much more important. What this clearly shows is that on an extremely fundamental level, getting cheated or cooperating with people who act in bad faith is what creates the cheating. If you tolerate bad faith, you ask for more bad faith behavior.
If you believe in personal agency and personal responsibility and don't believe in magical thinking, then it shows on a very mathematical level that your own weakness, the ability for someone to take advantage of you without consequences, is what creates defection rather than cooperation.
The lesson is clear, that if you want a world you want to be a part of, then you must become powerful and choose to use that power for good.
alickz 54 minutes ago [-]
>If you tolerate bad faith, you ask for more bad faith behavior.
Yet some bad faith behavior comes from misunderstanding, so to be completely intolerant of perceived bad faith behavior would be the same as entering into the endless "tit-for-tat" cheating loop mentioned on the site
"I'm intolerant of your (perceived) bad faith (because you're intolerant of my (perceived) bad faith)"
Works when perceptions aren't muddied, but that is rarely the case
>The lesson is clear, that if you want a world you want to be a part of, then you must become powerful and choose to use that power for good.
I agree broadly, but that logic is also the cause of a lot of cheating
"I cheat because they cheat"
"I need nuclear weapons because they have nuclear weapons"
Tit-for-tat is a great strategy, but it's not a _dominant_ strategy
I think that's the most important point the website makes
irjustin 11 hours ago [-]
> The lesson is clear, that if you want a world you want to be a part of, then you must become powerful and choose to use that power for good.
This particular lesson we've seen play out time and time again at a state level. Europe, USA, Singapore and even China.
The best thing that happened was corruption was either kept out or effectively eliminated.
When leaders are bad actors, it's pretty obvious, but an explicit example is the Philippines in the 50's-60's and how its economic powerhouse was squandered away.
Today, Vietnam is in the process of cleaning house and showing dividends while Indonesia really could really do amazing stuff if it go its act together.
AdieuToLogic 11 hours ago [-]
> This is one of my favorite things on the internet, but it focuses on the positive side of the story which is that groups of people cooperating can defeat a bunch of people who cheat each other. That's a pleasant message.
This is also a reasonable definition of a functional democratic society.
> If you believe in personal agency and personal responsibility and don't believe in magical thinking ...
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece
of the continent.[0]
> The lesson is clear, that if you want a world you want to be a part of, then you must become powerful and choose to use that power for good.
Or perhaps a different lesson is that if you want a better world to exist, choose to live it. Sometimes there will be those which do not share this vision and actively work against your choice.
The question then becomes:
Do you allow bad actors to determine who you are
or is who you are orthogonal to what bad actors do?
Note that "power" has no relevance to the answer of this question.
> Or perhaps a different lesson is that if you want a better world to exist, choose to live it. Sometimes there will be those which do not share this vision and actively work against your choice.
So you need the power to abide by your choices and not others'. I think the colloquial understanding of "power" is somewhat different than I want to convey. Power is potential, the ability to affect or effect, control[0]. Violence can be powerful, because a dead foe can't hurt you. Nonviolence can be powerful, because a dissuaded foe can't hurt you. Who you are determines what you do. What you do reflects who you are. The path you are walking on, whether to your design or not, requires power to prevent straying.
I feel like your comment sums up many life lessons. It's also the reason I stopped believing in extreme leftism as I matured. I think as young idealists we think "Surely if we just gave the government a lot more tax money, they'd solve the problems we all say we care about" and "Surely if you just give freely to whomever says they're in need, they won't cheat the system!"
Later I started to see the patterns where government spends most of the money lining the pockets of the well-connected, and then on the micro level how many people take advantage of any method of unjust enrichment, given the chance, and you start to desire much more accountability from all parties. And yes, things like, say, exhaustive income verification to qualify for benefits definitely hurts those who are playing by the rules the whole time. It's the cost of having trashy individuals in society who exploit everyone relentlessly.
ericrosedev 13 hours ago [-]
It looks like Copykitten is the sweet spot to me, with a focus on keeping miscommunication to a minimum. I wonder where, between 0% and 1%, there is a noticeable deviation, because I find the idea of the Copykitten more nuanced than the copycat, but the copycat always wins somewhere between 0 and 1.
Terr_ 13 hours ago [-]
> getting cheated or cooperating with people who act in bad faith is what creates the cheating
That reminds me of some game-theory stuff, a relatively simple "tit-for-tat with forgiveness" approach does pretty well. It matches a lot of our intuition too: Be nice, punish betrayal, but not too disproportionately.
Not the thing I was thinking of, but found this fun little interactive presentation that goes into some other factors/approaches: https://ncase.me/trust/
MIC132 8 hours ago [-]
You linked the same thing as the actual post.
divan 5 hours ago [-]
"Tell me you read only comments on HN without telling me you read only comments on HN" )
Nopoint2 8 hours ago [-]
I admire your bravery, but, do you understand that you risk losing everything in much of the western world for posting such heretical thoughts?
lmz 8 hours ago [-]
"Si vis pacem, para bellum".
thrance 3 hours ago [-]
OR, you can organize.
The most power-hungry among us often exhibit sociopathic behaviours, and those disproportionately occupy leadership positions. Most good things in our world (democracy, healthcare, welfare) came from building consensus, and weren't gifted by powerful individuals who rose to the top in an effort to bring fire to the masses. To the contrary, when they get their way, welfare and healthcare are cut to give tax breaks to the powerful, and democracies fall to concentrate power more effectively in the hands of the few.
I reject this simplistic Nietzschean analysis of the world. I reject the will to power and the Übermensch. Good societies are built on large groups of people cooperating, not individuals becoming powerful to do good.
krisoft 3 hours ago [-]
I disagree with the phrasing right the first question it asks.
It says "Let's say the other player cheats, and doesn't put in a coin.
What should you do?" and the two buttons are "cheat" and "cooperate". But if the other player doesn't put a coin in then not putting in a coin is not "cheating". It is simply not playing the game with that person.
Cheating would be where you say you will put in the coin (or have already put the coin in) but not doing so.
The prisoner's dilemma is a game theory thought experiment involving two rational agents, each of whom can either cooperate for mutual benefit or betray their partner ("defect") for individual gain. The dilemma arises from the fact that while defecting is rational for each agent, cooperation yields a higher payoff for each.
Also, in the second game, it says:
..but if you cheat & they cooperate, you gain three coins at their cost of one. (score: +3 vs -1) Therefore: you "should" still CHEAT.
Yes, technically and mathematically, it's 100% correct but morally, ethically and/or emotionally, it hurts.. a lot. Personally, I would never, ever do that!
tiffanyh 18 hours ago [-]
Vertasium has a great video talking how Tit-for-Tat (Copycat) wins as a strategy (and how there was a math competition that proved it as well)
The success of tit-for-tat is a common misunderstanding; it is only the most successful within the makeup of Axelrod's tournament. The OP explains that the strategy is entirely dependent on the environment, and tit-for-tat may not always be the optimal strategy.
gowld 18 hours ago [-]
Tit-for-Tat with occasional Forgiveness and occasional Defection (abuse of trust) often performs better than pure Tit-For-Tat, especially in the presence of random error.
Tit-For-Tat falls into "permanent mutual Defection" tar-pit when playing against a Tit-for-Tat-like opponent that Defects once (perhaps in error) and is non-Forgiving.
Humans are pretty good at repeated-game theory, intuitively.
frollogaston 16 hours ago [-]
The ncase.me game goes into the forgiveness part
Tsarp 2 hours ago [-]
This is really the best ways to explain basic game theory to anyone. It wasn't until some excellent Profs in Grad school that I finally understand some of the most basic concepts, but would always find it hard to explain to friends and family.
I also think game theory is one of the most important philosophies/life-lessons to understand as you go through life and this is an excellent resource to get people started on the basics.
gcanyon 14 hours ago [-]
No conversation on game theory is complete until someone brings up Golden Balls, and in particular this amazing moment (warning: terrible audio quality). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0qjK3TWZE8
bjconlan 13 hours ago [-]
I must say this is amazing. The psychology and manipulation makes me realize how poor I am regarding trust even when the other side is pushing for some unconfirmed equilibrium.
In the game I acknowledge that I was aligned to the "Simpleton" strategy (before it was outlined). Looks like simpleton might actually be applicable in a more general sense too which is a little disheartening.
ChicagoBoy11 18 hours ago [-]
The Evolution of Cooperation is one of the best non-fiction book I've ever read. Through basic algebra it lets you in on appreciating such a deep and profound idea.
wrboyce 18 hours ago [-]
Another great book on the subject is The Joy of Game Theory by Presh Talwalkar.
yubblegum 18 hours ago [-]
So this little game actually amplifies the distinction between "game theory" and (let's call it) 'relationship theory'. In the former you rely on strategy. In the latter, you rely on established trust.
You run the game once and at the end you are given 'character' headsup on the participants. Next time around playing the same game, you know who is who.
p.s. In effect the distinction can be generalized as 'depth of priors' for the 'bayesian game'.
gowld 18 hours ago [-]
Are you talking about "one-off games" vs "repeated games", or something else?
Repeated games are part of "game theory"
yubblegum 17 hours ago [-]
Repeated games. Think relationships. Once you have an accurate grasp of the 'character' of your playmate you can approach optimal results.
For example, the character with the flower hat is a 'detective'. We can assume the initial encounter is a coin-toss choice for her and the rest of her choices determined by 'character'. Of course even her first choice is 'in character' (she is 'testing') but if you know her, even if she starts off with a 'cheat' on her first choice, you start off with a 'cooperate'. After that, there is little mystery as to her choices. Or consider the 'grudger'. If for whatever reason you end up choosing 'cheat' once, you know they will never 'forgive' you. etc.
michalsustr 3 hours ago [-]
This also called opponent modeling.
Used in e.g. poker, so you can maximise your earnings.
I don't know if this is the official term for it, but that just sounds like metagaming[1], i.e. incorporating knowledge of the opposing player (or of trends among a group of opposing players) into how you play the game.
Found this ~10 years ago. Still one of the best things i've ever come across on the internet.
gota 11 hours ago [-]
Similar - this is where I found out about Komiku's music; I must've heard to thousands of hours of this while writing code
pmkary 2 hours ago [-]
One of the most "old but golds". I smile every time this makes it into the top here.
Digit-Al 4 hours ago [-]
If the creator is reading this, I was having problems with the viewport on my tablet. I can't scroll around the page and in portrait mode, stuff disappears off the side of the page, and in landscape mode stuff disappears off the top and bottom of the page.
Nopoint2 6 hours ago [-]
I think that detective isn't the correct way to exploit copycat. A character which cooperates, but cheats at random, and keeps defecting if you retaliate, could push the balance towards cooperators. Grudgers, not forgivers, also win in high error scenarios for some reason, as long as enough rounds are played.
0cf8612b2e1e 15 hours ago [-]
Radiolab had a story about this idea that I enjoyed.
This web site was so enlightening. I imagine it could often be difficult to put theory to practice as in real life there are so many variables to consider and many of them we can't quantify. Some of the demos illustrated complete opposite results due to a 1% change in the miscommunication variable. But I will say the 3 main takeaways they give you were more general and certainly applicable to real life.
To me it’s important to say that tit-for-tat and the Golden Rule are not the same. My understanding of the two are very different.
16 hours ago [-]
xpe 18 hours ago [-]
If you want the take-aways, click the next-to-last navigation circle on the bottom of the screen. I won't paste the spoilers here, because I think it would detract the experience.
I remember that in older formal game theory tournaments, a punish-once single-retaliation strategy won out. It was unconditional on copying, simply that if the opponent cheated, you cheat back once and then forgive until another cheat. Another form of Golden Rule approach. But I think those tournaments were under simpler conditions than the one here.
I like the incorporation of miscommunication, and being able to change the parameters.
dfltr 14 hours ago [-]
I remember that as well, but only because it's mentioned in book 8 of The Expanse.
adi_lancey 20 hours ago [-]
this is pretty cool, very nice explanation of concepts I hadn't touched since undergrad econ
daveguy 19 hours ago [-]
The simulation didn't cover the problem that the US is having right now -- intentional miscommunication. Unfortunately, there's a reason some countries employ warehouses full of trolls and propaganda spreaders. If you are losing the "game" spreading chaos will level the playing field. It will take the people of those countries to stop their leadership from acting in bad faith before things improve.
This is also the reason some social media outlets have become dystopian hellscapes.
"WE BECOME WHAT WE BEHOLD
a game about news cycles, vicious cycles, infinite cycles"
felineflock 17 hours ago [-]
Made me find out I don't dislike the media enough.
frollogaston 16 hours ago [-]
https://ncase.me/crowds/ is kinda about this. Not intentional misinformation exactly, just about how ideas like anger are amplified when you have an overly connected social network. There's supposedly a sweet spot.
Also, that's one of my favorite websites ever.
searine 17 hours ago [-]
This makes me think about The Dark Forest and the chain of distrust that results from lightspeed communications at stellar scale. The universe is harsh...
ericrosedev 11 hours ago [-]
And the stakes are instant annihilation! so there is no room for mistakes, eliminating almost all other viable positions
derbOac 14 hours ago [-]
Now add communication between players to repeated trials.
badmonster 16 hours ago [-]
very cute!
gowld 19 hours ago [-]
playing time: 30 min • by nicky case, july 2017
clueless 20 hours ago [-]
spoiler alert: is copycat strategy the reason united states feels like it's becoming more like the rest of the world, more authoritarian?
Peritract 5 hours ago [-]
> more like the rest of the world, more authoritarian
I don't think these are equivalent.
yubblegum 18 hours ago [-]
The implicit in your q is a negation of the notion of 'social classes'. If you accept the notion of social class (in the political/economical sense) the possibility remains that it is 'theatre' to hoist "authoritarianism" globally over the under classes.
Rendered at 13:56:44 GMT+0000 (UTC) with Wasmer Edge.
Unfortunately, I think the corollary is much more important. What this clearly shows is that on an extremely fundamental level, getting cheated or cooperating with people who act in bad faith is what creates the cheating. If you tolerate bad faith, you ask for more bad faith behavior.
If you believe in personal agency and personal responsibility and don't believe in magical thinking, then it shows on a very mathematical level that your own weakness, the ability for someone to take advantage of you without consequences, is what creates defection rather than cooperation.
The lesson is clear, that if you want a world you want to be a part of, then you must become powerful and choose to use that power for good.
Yet some bad faith behavior comes from misunderstanding, so to be completely intolerant of perceived bad faith behavior would be the same as entering into the endless "tit-for-tat" cheating loop mentioned on the site
"I'm intolerant of your (perceived) bad faith (because you're intolerant of my (perceived) bad faith)"
Works when perceptions aren't muddied, but that is rarely the case
>The lesson is clear, that if you want a world you want to be a part of, then you must become powerful and choose to use that power for good.
I agree broadly, but that logic is also the cause of a lot of cheating
"I cheat because they cheat"
"I need nuclear weapons because they have nuclear weapons"
Tit-for-tat is a great strategy, but it's not a _dominant_ strategy
I think that's the most important point the website makes
This particular lesson we've seen play out time and time again at a state level. Europe, USA, Singapore and even China.
The best thing that happened was corruption was either kept out or effectively eliminated.
When leaders are bad actors, it's pretty obvious, but an explicit example is the Philippines in the 50's-60's and how its economic powerhouse was squandered away.
Today, Vietnam is in the process of cleaning house and showing dividends while Indonesia really could really do amazing stuff if it go its act together.
This is also a reasonable definition of a functional democratic society.
> If you believe in personal agency and personal responsibility and don't believe in magical thinking ...
> The lesson is clear, that if you want a world you want to be a part of, then you must become powerful and choose to use that power for good.Or perhaps a different lesson is that if you want a better world to exist, choose to live it. Sometimes there will be those which do not share this vision and actively work against your choice.
The question then becomes:
Note that "power" has no relevance to the answer of this question.0 - https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_donne_101197
So you need the power to abide by your choices and not others'. I think the colloquial understanding of "power" is somewhat different than I want to convey. Power is potential, the ability to affect or effect, control[0]. Violence can be powerful, because a dead foe can't hurt you. Nonviolence can be powerful, because a dissuaded foe can't hurt you. Who you are determines what you do. What you do reflects who you are. The path you are walking on, whether to your design or not, requires power to prevent straying.
[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/power
Later I started to see the patterns where government spends most of the money lining the pockets of the well-connected, and then on the micro level how many people take advantage of any method of unjust enrichment, given the chance, and you start to desire much more accountability from all parties. And yes, things like, say, exhaustive income verification to qualify for benefits definitely hurts those who are playing by the rules the whole time. It's the cost of having trashy individuals in society who exploit everyone relentlessly.
That reminds me of some game-theory stuff, a relatively simple "tit-for-tat with forgiveness" approach does pretty well. It matches a lot of our intuition too: Be nice, punish betrayal, but not too disproportionately.
Not the thing I was thinking of, but found this fun little interactive presentation that goes into some other factors/approaches: https://ncase.me/trust/
The most power-hungry among us often exhibit sociopathic behaviours, and those disproportionately occupy leadership positions. Most good things in our world (democracy, healthcare, welfare) came from building consensus, and weren't gifted by powerful individuals who rose to the top in an effort to bring fire to the masses. To the contrary, when they get their way, welfare and healthcare are cut to give tax breaks to the powerful, and democracies fall to concentrate power more effectively in the hands of the few.
I reject this simplistic Nietzschean analysis of the world. I reject the will to power and the Übermensch. Good societies are built on large groups of people cooperating, not individuals becoming powerful to do good.
It says "Let's say the other player cheats, and doesn't put in a coin. What should you do?" and the two buttons are "cheat" and "cooperate". But if the other player doesn't put a coin in then not putting in a coin is not "cheating". It is simply not playing the game with that person.
Cheating would be where you say you will put in the coin (or have already put the coin in) but not doing so.
..but if you cheat & they cooperate, you gain three coins at their cost of one. (score: +3 vs -1) Therefore: you "should" still CHEAT.
Yes, technically and mathematically, it's 100% correct but morally, ethically and/or emotionally, it hurts.. a lot. Personally, I would never, ever do that!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM
---
This seems like a nice rebuild of the math competition performed years ago (as talked about in the video link above).
Direct link to that part of the video: https://youtu.be/mScpHTIi-kM?si=yzZxyeYw4cJA-i37&t=583
Humans are pretty good at repeated-game theory, intuitively.
I also think game theory is one of the most important philosophies/life-lessons to understand as you go through life and this is an excellent resource to get people started on the basics.
In the game I acknowledge that I was aligned to the "Simpleton" strategy (before it was outlined). Looks like simpleton might actually be applicable in a more general sense too which is a little disheartening.
You run the game once and at the end you are given 'character' headsup on the participants. Next time around playing the same game, you know who is who.
p.s. In effect the distinction can be generalized as 'depth of priors' for the 'bayesian game'.
Repeated games are part of "game theory"
For example, the character with the flower hat is a 'detective'. We can assume the initial encounter is a coin-toss choice for her and the rest of her choices determined by 'character'. Of course even her first choice is 'in character' (she is 'testing') but if you know her, even if she starts off with a 'cheat' on her first choice, you start off with a 'cooperate'. After that, there is little mystery as to her choices. Or consider the 'grudger'. If for whatever reason you end up choosing 'cheat' once, you know they will never 'forgive' you. etc.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=oppo...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagame#Competitive_gaming
https://radiolab.org/podcast/104010-one-good-deed-deserves-a...
To me it’s important to say that tit-for-tat and the Golden Rule are not the same. My understanding of the two are very different.
I like the incorporation of miscommunication, and being able to change the parameters.
This is also the reason some social media outlets have become dystopian hellscapes.
https://ncase.itch.io/wbwwb
"WE BECOME WHAT WE BEHOLD a game about news cycles, vicious cycles, infinite cycles"
Also, that's one of my favorite websites ever.
I don't think these are equivalent.