5 ms·
> It's simple. Don't reward bad behavior. This is mathematically backed. In the game of prisoners dilemma if someone chooses to defect (bad behavior) rather t
by hayst4ck 3y ago
> It's simple. Don't reward bad behavior.
This is mathematically backed.
In the game of prisoners dilemma if someone chooses to defect (bad behavior) rather than cooperate, and you choose to cooperate (reward bad behavior), bad behavior becomes a winning strategy, so you can expect even more bad behavior in the future.
- wahnfrieden 3y agoAnd if there are millions of users vs one company? The lifestyle choice of individuals won't matter without coordination
- dragontamer 3y agoPrisoner's Dilemma is a good example but probably has a lot of bias due to its naming convention. I think I prefer the Stag's Game for this situation. And honestly, the Stag's game is probably more applicable to this situation. ----------- Both players have the choice of picking "Rabbit" or "Stag". "Rabbit" is the independent choice, you score 1 point for picking the Rabbit. "Stag" is the cooperation choice. You get 10 points if both players pick stag, but 0 points if the opponent picks Rabbit. Its not so much that the current situation is a betrayal (ie: Prisoner's Dilemma), as much as the current Reddit situation is picking a short-sighted, still profitable, choice. (Rabbit). But by picking Rabbit, they're screwing the community (who has gotten used to picking Stag / scoring 10 points instead). ---------- Unlike the Prisoner's Dilemma, the Stag's game is bimodal. If both players are picking "Stag", the Nash Equalibrium is to continue picking stag forever more. But if for some reason, a player ever makes a mistake and picks "Rabbit", the game switches to Rabbit-meta and neither player ever has a reason to go back to pick "Stag".