I still don’t see what does all this have to do with human values.
I also don’t understand what does it mean for game theory to “be solved”. If you mean that in certain specific situations you don’t get an answer, that’s true for physics as well.
Game theory would be solved if there were a set of reasonable criteria which, if applied to every possible game of rational players, would cause you to know what the players would do.
Game theory would be solved if there were a set of reasonable criteria which, if applied to every possible game of rational players, would cause you to know what the players would do.
To continue with physics: physics would be solved if there were a set of reasonable criteria which, if applied to every possible interaction of particles, would cause you to know what the particles would do.
Consider a situation in which using physics you could prove that (1) X won’t happen, and (2) X will happen. If this situation existed physics wouldn’t be capable of being solved, but my understanding of science is that such a situation is unlikely to exist. Alas, this kind of situation does come up in game theory.
Whether you get an answer is dependent on the criteria you choose, but these criteria must have arbitrariness in them even for rational people. Consider the solution concept “never play a weakly dominated strategy.” This is neither right nor wrong but an arbitrary criteria that reflects human values.
Saying “the game theory solution is A,Y” is closer to “this picture is pretty” than “the electron will...”
Also, assuming someone is rational and wants to maximize his payoff isn’t enough to fully specify him, and consequently you need to bring in human values to figure out how this person will behave.
You seem to be talking about forecasting human behavior and giving advice to humans about how to behave.
That, of course, depends on human values. But that is related to game theory in the same way engineering is related to mathematics. If you are building a bridge you need to know the properties of materials you’re building it out of. Doesn’t change the equations, though.
You know that a race of aliens is rational. Do you need to know more about their values to predict how they will build bridges? Yes. Do you need to know more about their values to predict how they will play games? Yes.
Game theory is (basically) the study of how rational people behave. Unfortunately, there will always exist relatively simple games for which you can not use the tools of game theory to determine how players will behave.
Game theory is (basically) the study of how rational people behave.
Ah. We have a terminology difference. I defined my understanding of game theory a bit upthread and it’s not about people at all. For example, consider software agents operating in a network with distributed resources and untrusted counterparties.
I still don’t see what does all this have to do with human values.
I also don’t understand what does it mean for game theory to “be solved”. If you mean that in certain specific situations you don’t get an answer, that’s true for physics as well.
Game theory would be solved if there were a set of reasonable criteria which, if applied to every possible game of rational players, would cause you to know what the players would do.
To continue with physics: physics would be solved if there were a set of reasonable criteria which, if applied to every possible interaction of particles, would cause you to know what the particles would do.
Consider a situation in which using physics you could prove that (1) X won’t happen, and (2) X will happen. If this situation existed physics wouldn’t be capable of being solved, but my understanding of science is that such a situation is unlikely to exist. Alas, this kind of situation does come up in game theory.
Well, it’s math but...
Whether you get an answer is dependent on the criteria you choose, but these criteria must have arbitrariness in them even for rational people. Consider the solution concept “never play a weakly dominated strategy.” This is neither right nor wrong but an arbitrary criteria that reflects human values.
Saying “the game theory solution is A,Y” is closer to “this picture is pretty” than “the electron will...”
Also, assuming someone is rational and wants to maximize his payoff isn’t enough to fully specify him, and consequently you need to bring in human values to figure out how this person will behave.
You seem to be talking about forecasting human behavior and giving advice to humans about how to behave.
That, of course, depends on human values. But that is related to game theory in the same way engineering is related to mathematics. If you are building a bridge you need to know the properties of materials you’re building it out of. Doesn’t change the equations, though.
You know that a race of aliens is rational. Do you need to know more about their values to predict how they will build bridges? Yes. Do you need to know more about their values to predict how they will play games? Yes.
Game theory is (basically) the study of how rational people behave. Unfortunately, there will always exist relatively simple games for which you can not use the tools of game theory to determine how players will behave.
Ah. We have a terminology difference. I defined my understanding of game theory a bit upthread and it’s not about people at all. For example, consider software agents operating in a network with distributed resources and untrusted counterparties.