Hacker News Reader

> you can't be trapped in a sub-optimal situation and be rational at the same time.

In order for this statement to be true, you must also have perfect knowledge: something that is unachievable in most circumstances. Getting trapped in a local-optimal solution is perfectly possible if you are blindly following stochastic decent along a gradient: as it is too with life... getting trapped like this looks like being in the situation where there is no rational action (only irrational ones) that (eventually) lead to anything other that that status quo. a local optimum is where you have to do increasingly (in proportion to the level of optimization) non-positive actions to escape (likely to another local-optimal).

> In order for this statement to be true, you must also have perfect knowledge: something that is unachievable in most circumstances.

if the optimal situation requires perfect knowledge that can't be had then it's not the optimal situation, it's a fantasy. it's like saying the fastest route through a maze is a straight line from the start to the finish-- that would be true if the maze wasn't there.

there are two ends to what i'm arguing but people seem to only be able to hold one in their mind at a time.

okay: I have to generous with your diction and your intentions. I believe you are trying to say that since 'optimal algorithms for choices exist': 'local maximums can't exist'.

It is very possible to have a optimal algorithm that leads to a sub-optimal (local maximum) because the problem is np hard. Both in math and in life.

"It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life" - Picard

> the rational thing for these rational competitors to do would be to agree

This is the bit that is tripping you up. The market is composed of more than just the these potentially agreeing parties, so there is no case where all parties can even come together to agree. It's rational for any party to break the agreement or be stealthy and attempt to take the upper hand while the visible players are all patting themselves on the back for their self-inflicted restraint. It's rational for one party to encourage everyone to come together to agree, to distract from their own actions to undercut everyone else.

On top of that, such agreement would potentially qualify as collusion, allowing an upstart to cry foul.

It's all game theory.

then it isn't possible in that situation to limit ai deployment, so limiting ai deployment can't be optimal because it's impossible.

> you can't be trapped in a sub-optimal situation and be rational at the same time

Yes you can that’s what tragedy of the commons is. Rational means you take the choice that provides the most value for yourself. Without a cartel (hard) or government regulation this situation happens all the time.

Tragedy of the commons is when a shared resource is rationally used by the individual, but harms the whole.

You can be trapped in sub-optimal situation because it's a local maxima; not because of tragedy of commons, which is something different.

Society can be trapped in local maxima and that would be because of tragedy of commons, and individuals can be trapped in local maxima but that's distinct from tragedy of commons.

Yes and no. It's not a new problem for humans and it's a pretty solvable problem if social pressure and structures can be applied once it is identified. As long as the resource is to be used by a community that depends on it and not an outsider then we are able to keep ourselves mostly in line for the benefit of the group.

> Rational means you take the choice that provides the most value for yourself.

provides the most value over what period of time?

making every choice such that each choice, considered in isolation and unto itself, nets you the most value compared to what other choices would've gotten you at that same moment is analogous to best-first search. no one would say that best-first is the rational way to search for a path in a graph, because of all the ways it fails. so my question is, if there's one of those tragedy-of-the-commons situations that happens all the time, why do we insist on saying the participants are acting rationally when they are, metaphorically, walking into a wall forever?

Remember when the buttons test was circulating a few months ago? Where if you press the red button, you survive, but if you press the blue button, unless more than 50% of people chose the blue button you die? That was a case very similar to this. It is locally optimal for everyone to choose red; your own outcome is always better or equal to what it would have been if you chose blue, however everyone independently making this optimal choice is catastrophic on a global scale. Thats why its "rational".

It's rational at the individual level, irrational at the group level.

The issue is you can't easily enforce cooperation without some external overarching force (e.g. regulation), especially across competing powers.

Refer to nuclear arms race in general. A specific example on why not to be the only one to cooperate: Ukraine gave up nukes in order to push for group level rationality, gets walked over as an individual. Oversimplifying, but yeah that's the rough point.

Meditations on Moloch is a favourite of mine on this (albeit very depressing): https://www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/Meditations-On-Moloch

Something in the ballpark of a Nash equilibrium. Kinda amazing how often you run into those things, in situations like groupthink.

This linked moloch essay caters to pseudointellectuals and uses a lot of words to do one thing: absolve the evil people of any responsibility.

Instead of wasting a potential reader's time, here's a way better framing: "The Earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses."

I appreciate that and even agree, but what are we to do about it? Revolt?

I'll let you be the first one to start.. (hence why its depressing to me)

> It's rational at the individual level, irrational at the group level.

no, it's irrational at the individual level too, because it will cause more harm than good to the individual firms. it's in the short-term that the cost savings are had; the demand destruction is long-term and outweighs the cost savings.

that's what the abstract says. the only issue i have is insisting on calling that rational. it's like saying eating all the seed corn is rational if you can eat most of it yourself. in the moment you're winning, so it's rational. but tomorrow everyone has none. why do we call that rational?

why do we torture the word rational rather than phrase it as competitors are in some ways incapable of acting rationally?

Yeah it's a pet peev of mine as well. People define very tight space and then proclaim actions irrational if they don't make rational sense in that setting.

Which wouldn't be a problem in itself if there was discussion about the defined space and if it is an actually good model.

A big chunk of economics is like that, if the data doesnt fit the model then too bad for the data. Same goes for metrics used, externalities are like a side note in economy books and not an example of fundamental issues with current economic toola and modeling.

And it's not limited to introductory level either. Nordhaus had most asinine assumptions in his model and he got the pseudo-Nobel.

It's not pretty.

The term you are looking for is what Douglas Hofstadter called "superrationality" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality].

You can... check tragedy of the commons, and prisoners' dilemma