But perhaps a better way forward would be to define a new concept of “Useful power” or something like that, which equals your share of the total power in a zero-sum game.
I don’t see why useful power is particularly useful, since it’s taking a non-constant-sum quantity (outside of nash equilibria) and making it constant-sum, which seems misleading.
But I also don’t see a problem with the “better play → less exploitability → less total Power” reasoning. this feels like a situation where our naive intuitions about power are just wrong, and if you think about it more, the formal result reflects a meaningful phenomenon.
this feels like a situation where our naive intuitions about power are just wrong, and if you think about it more, the formal result reflects a meaningful phenomenon.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. It feels very different to me.
I don’t see why useful power is particularly useful, since it’s taking a non-constant-sum quantity (outside of nash equilibria) and making it constant-sum, which seems misleading.
But I also don’t see a problem with the “better play → less exploitability → less total Power” reasoning. this feels like a situation where our naive intuitions about power are just wrong, and if you think about it more, the formal result reflects a meaningful phenomenon.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. It feels very different to me.