I tried to think of different names for the Moloch Dynamic[1] and came up with
Mutual Sacrifice Trap
Mutual Sacrifice Equilibrium
Mutual Sacrifice Equilibrium Trap
Sacrifice Race
Sacrifice Competition
“Collective” can also replace or be added before “Mutual”, to signify that it tends to refer to dynamics of many actors, where coordinating to get out of the equilibrium trap is difficult.
“In some competition optimizing for X, the opportunity arises to throw some other value under the bus for improved X. Those who take it prosper. Those who don’t take it die out. Eventually, everyone’s relative status is about the same as before, but everyone’s absolute status is worse than before. The process continues until all other values that can be traded off have been – in other words, until human ingenuity cannot possibly figure out a way to make things any worse.”—Scott Alexander, Meditations on Moloch
Ouuu nice! there’s some good ones here. I think my favourite from these is “Sacrificial Spiral”. “Sacrificial Contest” is also good. Deadlock is also a good term, though not as part of “Competition Deadlock”. Perhaps “Mutual Sacrifice Deadlock”, or something of the sort. “Feedback” can also be a good term.
To me, the heart of the matter is being trapped in local minima which involve negative sum competitions.
Pyrrhic victory is sometimes involved, but sometimes not. An example of not a mutual loss would be if Actor A does come out ahead of where they started, but Actor B lost more than Actor A gained.
A rat race which devours slack, as Dagon mentions is another example. Although that doesn’t seem as central to Moloch to me as Negative Sum competition.
Also, there’s a related psychological aspect to this. When people get scared and insecure and hostile in their trades and competitions, they have a tendency to stop even searching for win-win solutions. Liv Boeree talks about Win-Win being the opposite of Moloch. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC09fp6hZ2RHiUYwY8hNCirA
Yeah, I think I agree with this. Do you have an idea for a name that captures this dynamic? Do you think one of the names I or Legionnaire suggested captures it?
Nathan :
I dislike the term sacrifice since it implies a knowing deliberate choice to give up something, specifically for a ceremonial purpose. I think this intentionality is importantly absent in these race dynamics. Indeed, all the parties realizing the nature of the pattern they are in is often the first step to escaping it.
Claude: You make an excellent point. The term “sacrifice” does indeed carry connotations of intentionality and ceremony that are not accurate for this dynamic. You’re right to highlight that the lack of awareness is often a crucial part of the problem. Let’s reconsider our options with this in mind:
Race-based terms:
“Destructive Race Dynamic”
“Race to Ruin”
“Competitive Decline Spiral”
Trap-based terms:
“Mutual Depletion Trap”
“Collective Erosion Trap”
“Competitive Degradation Trap”
Equilibrium-based terms:
“Negative Equilibrium Dynamic”
“Deteriorating Equilibrium Trap”
“Suboptimal Stability Trap”
Feedback-based terms:
“Negative Feedback Loop”
“Destructive Feedback Cycle”
“Erosive Competition Cycle”
Other options:
“Collective Value Decay”
“Competitive Devaluation Dynamic”
“Mutual Loss Spiral”
“Unintentional Decline Pattern”
These alternatives avoid the implication of intentional sacrifice while still capturing the essence of the dynamic. They emphasize the unintended, gradual nature of the decline and the trapped state of the participants.
Among these, I find “Competitive Decline Spiral” particularly effective. It captures the competitive nature, the worsening situation over time, and avoids any implication of intentionality. “Mutual Depletion Trap” is another strong contender, emphasizing the trapped nature of the situation and the mutual loss without suggesting deliberate action.
“Unintentional Decline Pattern” might be the most explicit in addressing your concern about avoiding implied intentionality, though it’s a bit longer and less punchy than some other options.
I think competition is an important element to capture in the name. I’m not sure that any of sacrifice, race, or trap are defining concepts, though they usually apply. I think of it as over-focus on a few somewhat-visible (if not perfectly legible) dimensions, at the expense of harder-to-notice-analytically value dimensions. So maybe “goodharted value optimization”, but that’s not great either.
In my head, I tend to think of it as related to “moneyball over-focus”—taking the wrong lesson from Billy Beane’s success—he optimized for winning on a budget, not for great baseball athleticism or developing player excellence (except as part of the visible optimization). He was very successful in that, but the world lost something for it.
The antidote is Slack, which is the ultimate illegible value. I’m not sure how/whether to work that into the name.
Hmm.. I think our understanding what “Moloch” stands for is quite different, cause none of what you suggested seems close to me. Which I guess also illustrates why I wanted a different name. “Moloch” is very good at entering your head and creating a visceral feeling of the dynamic, but it can also make it ambiguous and difficult to understand. Also, I find when I introduce people to the concept, it really throws them off if I start to talking about some mythical deity from the Bible :)
I tried to think of different names for the Moloch Dynamic[1] and came up with
Mutual Sacrifice Trap
Mutual Sacrifice Equilibrium
Mutual Sacrifice Equilibrium Trap
Sacrifice Race
Sacrifice Competition
“Collective” can also replace or be added before “Mutual”, to signify that it tends to refer to dynamics of many actors, where coordinating to get out of the equilibrium trap is difficult.
What do you think of these options?
A reminder of what the Moloch Dynamic is:
LLMs can be very good at coming up with names with some work:
A few I liked:
Sacrificial Contest
Mutual Ruin Game
Sacrificial Spiral
Universal Loss Competition
Collective Sacrifice Trap
Competition Deadlock
Competition Spiral
Competition Stalemate
Destructive Contest
Destructive Feedback Competition
Conflict Feedback Spiral
Ouuu nice! there’s some good ones here. I think my favourite from these is “Sacrificial Spiral”. “Sacrificial Contest” is also good. Deadlock is also a good term, though not as part of “Competition Deadlock”. Perhaps “Mutual Sacrifice Deadlock”, or something of the sort. “Feedback” can also be a good term.
Thanks!
To me, the heart of the matter is being trapped in local minima which involve negative sum competitions. Pyrrhic victory is sometimes involved, but sometimes not. An example of not a mutual loss would be if Actor A does come out ahead of where they started, but Actor B lost more than Actor A gained.
A rat race which devours slack, as Dagon mentions is another example. Although that doesn’t seem as central to Moloch to me as Negative Sum competition.
Also, there’s a related psychological aspect to this. When people get scared and insecure and hostile in their trades and competitions, they have a tendency to stop even searching for win-win solutions. Liv Boeree talks about Win-Win being the opposite of Moloch. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC09fp6hZ2RHiUYwY8hNCirA
Yeah, I think I agree with this. Do you have an idea for a name that captures this dynamic? Do you think one of the names I or Legionnaire suggested captures it?
I asked Claude Sonnet 3.5.
Nathan : I dislike the term sacrifice since it implies a knowing deliberate choice to give up something, specifically for a ceremonial purpose. I think this intentionality is importantly absent in these race dynamics. Indeed, all the parties realizing the nature of the pattern they are in is often the first step to escaping it.
Claude: You make an excellent point. The term “sacrifice” does indeed carry connotations of intentionality and ceremony that are not accurate for this dynamic. You’re right to highlight that the lack of awareness is often a crucial part of the problem. Let’s reconsider our options with this in mind:
Race-based terms:
“Destructive Race Dynamic”
“Race to Ruin”
“Competitive Decline Spiral”
Trap-based terms:
“Mutual Depletion Trap”
“Collective Erosion Trap”
“Competitive Degradation Trap”
Equilibrium-based terms:
“Negative Equilibrium Dynamic”
“Deteriorating Equilibrium Trap”
“Suboptimal Stability Trap”
Feedback-based terms:
“Negative Feedback Loop”
“Destructive Feedback Cycle”
“Erosive Competition Cycle”
Other options:
“Collective Value Decay”
“Competitive Devaluation Dynamic”
“Mutual Loss Spiral”
“Unintentional Decline Pattern”
These alternatives avoid the implication of intentional sacrifice while still capturing the essence of the dynamic. They emphasize the unintended, gradual nature of the decline and the trapped state of the participants.
Among these, I find “Competitive Decline Spiral” particularly effective. It captures the competitive nature, the worsening situation over time, and avoids any implication of intentionality. “Mutual Depletion Trap” is another strong contender, emphasizing the trapped nature of the situation and the mutual loss without suggesting deliberate action.
“Unintentional Decline Pattern” might be the most explicit in addressing your concern about avoiding implied intentionality, though it’s a bit longer and less punchy than some other options.
I think competition is an important element to capture in the name. I’m not sure that any of sacrifice, race, or trap are defining concepts, though they usually apply. I think of it as over-focus on a few somewhat-visible (if not perfectly legible) dimensions, at the expense of harder-to-notice-analytically value dimensions. So maybe “goodharted value optimization”, but that’s not great either.
In my head, I tend to think of it as related to “moneyball over-focus”—taking the wrong lesson from Billy Beane’s success—he optimized for winning on a budget, not for great baseball athleticism or developing player excellence (except as part of the visible optimization). He was very successful in that, but the world lost something for it.
The antidote is Slack, which is the ultimate illegible value. I’m not sure how/whether to work that into the name.
Hmm.. I think our understanding what “Moloch” stands for is quite different, cause none of what you suggested seems close to me. Which I guess also illustrates why I wanted a different name. “Moloch” is very good at entering your head and creating a visceral feeling of the dynamic, but it can also make it ambiguous and difficult to understand. Also, I find when I introduce people to the concept, it really throws them off if I start to talking about some mythical deity from the Bible :)