3 ms·

I think the point he is making is that competition will prevent others from being able to FOOM and 51% everyone else and "win" outright to the point that it is

I think the point he is making is that competition will prevent others from being able to FOOM and 51% everyone else and "win" outright to the point that it is dangerous. Or competition will prevent one player from getting the "powder keg". Competition can do that if it is fair competition and a good game design. That is why rules and regulations are important in any game or it becomes Calvinball where the only rule is there are no rules and "it can't be played the same way twice" [1], which sounds great until you start losing to cheats. Though even that has some aspect of competition, the changing of rules in your favor while others change the rules in their favor. The flaw in the thinking is that there will be "fair" competition. Any game design with good regulations and caps on game theory advantages (especially the cheat) "fair" competition is attainable. In game theory, if the other side cheats and your side keeps cooperating, you will lose every time. There is a great little game theory game that highlights it here called The Evolution of Trust. [2] In a market with collusion, or excessive advantage, this may not be possible to retain fairness. Even right now we can see with overweight/top heavy wealth players in capitalism if there is collusion or one player gets too big, and there is no anti-trust or "blue shell", then that player will win every time. AI needs an anti-trust or "blue shell" to knock down any player that is too advanced, but that might not be possible. Doing that is barely possible in a market run by humans now. The market is a garden, you have to help the seeds and cull back the overgrowth at the top. This is so the whole garden can thrive, lower seeds, middle plants and large production. Right now the large overgrowth gets all the benefits, policy control, water and nutrients, taking over the garden and even harming themselves with the overgrowth. Most real world game theory and design would be horrible game design where the larger player always wins. Now imagine a game that the larger player controls the game design, you'd never be able to nerf them. If one player can get the "powder keg" everyone, we need the game to be able to "blue shell" the bigger and potentially colluding/cheating player. [1] Calvinball https://calvinandhobbes.fandom.com/wiki/Calvinball https://calvinandhobbes.fandom.com/wiki/Calvinball [2] The Evolution of Trust https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/

andrewjl 3y ago
> The flaw in the thinking is that there will be "fair" competition. Why does what OP concludes require fairness? Wouldn't the same logic apply if every player defects, in game theory terms?
- drawkbox 3y ago
  OP doesn't really go into it other than competition will be a check on FOOM. Which I think is valid as in history any market with competition creates better products and keeps players in check. I was arguing that competition if it is a more open market with fair rules/regulations, where competition is fair, that is true. Though many times it is a fixed market, or a cheat that stifles competition that might keep it in check. Fixed markets happen more and more where the concentration is high and efficient players will game the system. No products or markets are better where big fish solely control everything. That is why anti-trust or regulation need to expand to funding level not just surface company level. If you own entire industries across many companies, that is still oligarchy/monopoly if it is controlled by the same funding/sources. Concentration needs to be broken up, for competition and better market and quality of life for everyone. Most people definitely don't want to make the authoritarian systems wealthier than open markets. Concentration starts to take us away from a fair market and more towards a fixed/gamed market. Everything in that gets so tuned that competition is very hard to enter. Very little margin and too much optimization/efficiency is bad for resilience. Couple that with private equity backed near leverage monopolies that control necessary supply and you have trouble. HBS is even realizing too much optimization/efficiency is a bad thing. The slack/margin is squeezing out an ability to change vectors quickly. The High Price of Efficiency, Our Obsession with Efficiency Is Destroying Our Resilience [1] > Superefficient businesses create the potential for social disorder. > A superefficient dominant model elevates the risk of catastrophic failure. > *If a system is highly efficient, odds are that efficient players will game it.* > sometimes power becomes so concentrated that political action is needed to loosen the stranglehold of the dominant players, as in the antitrust movement of the 1890s. Couple massive wealth and concentration, even leaning authoritarian by then as tends to happen with fixed/controlled markets, with AI/AGI and you no longer have a "blue shell" because those players control the rules and thus the game. [1] https://hbr.org/2019/01/the-high-price-of-efficiency https://hbr.org/2019/01/the-high-price-of-efficiency

andrewjl 3y ago

> The flaw in the thinking is that there will be "fair" competition. Why does what OP concludes require fairness? Wouldn't the same logic apply if every player defects, in game theory terms?

drawkbox 3y ago
OP doesn't really go into it other than competition will be a check on FOOM. Which I think is valid as in history any market with competition creates better products and keeps players in check. I was arguing that competition if it is a more open market with fair rules/regulations, where competition is fair, that is true. Though many times it is a fixed market, or a cheat that stifles competition that might keep it in check. Fixed markets happen more and more where the concentration is high and efficient players will game the system. No products or markets are better where big fish solely control everything. That is why anti-trust or regulation need to expand to funding level not just surface company level. If you own entire industries across many companies, that is still oligarchy/monopoly if it is controlled by the same funding/sources. Concentration needs to be broken up, for competition and better market and quality of life for everyone. Most people definitely don't want to make the authoritarian systems wealthier than open markets. Concentration starts to take us away from a fair market and more towards a fixed/gamed market. Everything in that gets so tuned that competition is very hard to enter. Very little margin and too much optimization/efficiency is bad for resilience. Couple that with private equity backed near leverage monopolies that control necessary supply and you have trouble. HBS is even realizing too much optimization/efficiency is a bad thing. The slack/margin is squeezing out an ability to change vectors quickly. The High Price of Efficiency, Our Obsession with Efficiency Is Destroying Our Resilience [1] > Superefficient businesses create the potential for social disorder. > A superefficient dominant model elevates the risk of catastrophic failure. > *If a system is highly efficient, odds are that efficient players will game it.* > sometimes power becomes so concentrated that political action is needed to loosen the stranglehold of the dominant players, as in the antitrust movement of the 1890s. Couple massive wealth and concentration, even leaning authoritarian by then as tends to happen with fixed/controlled markets, with AI/AGI and you no longer have a "blue shell" because those players control the rules and thus the game. [1] https://hbr.org/2019/01/the-high-price-of-efficiency https://hbr.org/2019/01/the-high-price-of-efficiency