golden balls. the weirdest split or steal ever!

No conversation on game theory is complete until someone brings up Golden Balls, and in particular this amazing moment (warning: terrible audio quality). ▶ this video

If you find this article interesting, Coursera's "Competitive Strategy" [1] is a pretty good introduction on the topic of game theory and how it can be used as a decision-making framework for business, I've found. As a case study, I recommend watching this episode of "Golden Balls" [2], which shows how a player can manipulate a game outcome and defeat the natural Nash equilibria. This is a classic IMO. [1] link [2] ▶ this video

This is the most clever I've seen: ▶ this video He ensures his opponent has nothing to gain from defecting... (Rules etc until 2m 30s, then the game)

There is great demonstration of this in action on a British game show with the players being in a prisoners dilemma situation; ▶ this video

This clip [1], from the UK game show "Golden Balls", is a very entertaining example of a two-player zero-sum game EDIT: As explained in the replies, this is not actually a zero-sum game. [1] ▶ this video

This is almost accurate. You can slightly increase your chances if you say "I will defect, but will take care of your family and give you half my income forever. If you also defect, we will both go to prison and you will be worse off", then don't actually defect - which means you both cooperate! It won't always work, but it did work flawlessly in a show called "Split or Steal", which basically made the prisoner's dilemma a TV show: ▶ this video

This reminds me of CEO-speak. A CEO cannot speak their true mind or their true assessment of a situation. They can't say "wow we're in trouble here" because then people will jump ship and then the company will be even more in trouble (and the CEO would get sued for breaching Fiduciary Duty) What a CEO says is merely wishful thinking for a goal they want people to follow. They can never speak their true plan. (And of course, it's all just game theory, a more elaborate version of ▶ this video )

This paper is funny if you actually understand game theory because you can see how the author either chose to withhold key applicable information for applied game theory or inadequately researched famous game theory principles and developments. This is a much easier and more realistic introduction to game theory principles: link Game theory is often explained as a math problem involving humans and a specific scenario that requires a choice, from humans. The scenarios are fun thought experiments and about as useful as the famous trolley problem [1][2] In reality humans have many more variables affecting decisions than the pure rational equations can clearly define. Often the undefined variables are within the context of communication theory and reputation or auditing systems. In the case of the famous prisoners dilemma, the real solution is establishing a secret out of band communication channel prior to the dilemma, alongside a known reputation and retaliation penalty for abusing the mutual trust.[3] [4] The famous "tragedy of the commons" rational resource optimization game is often cited as justification for machiavellian exploitation, yet humans being social creatures are subject to reputations, and have sophisticated communication, cooperation, and retaliation abilities. [4] Elinor Ostrom's "Rules, games, and common-pool resources" and Robert Axelrod's work "The Evolution of Cooperation" both explain game theory in the context of human scale realities. Of particular int

If you really ended up thinking like that I think that is more reflective of your personality/mind than Yudkowsky's writings. Like, I don't mean this to be insulting, but normal people don't end up paranoid and anxious and worrying about what levels people are playing at and thinking that super intelligent beings are the nature of the world, after reading LW. Normal people say "Huh thats cool" and it makes for fun dinner table talks and at best comes up in real life if you are a contestant on a game show: ▶ this video Yudkowsky isn't some devious mastermind trying to brainwash people into thinking wrong so he can. So he can what? Even if he was a devious mastermind who created a polemic work so as to get people to think wrong... what would his goal be?

This says we can't use game theory to analyze this situation, but the only argument given in support is that humans aren't rational. "Irrational" (or otherwise emotional) strategies are by no means outside of the analysis of game theory. It's well known that by "irrationally" eliminating one of your choices, you can push your opponent into different options. For example, take this infamous episode of split or steal: ▶ this video One side makes a choice to go with perhaps the most "irrational" choice. But if you think about it for a bit, it's obvious that they end up guaranteeing the better choice for both parties by being less greedy than they might be. Anyone interested in the topic of rationality as it pertains to game theory might also like reading this: link

Thought experiments are not set in stone, and even if they were modifications could me made. A real game show [1] put two people in a position of the prisoners dilemma and they were free to communicate. [2] [1] ▶ this video [2] link

This type of thinking reminds me of the show Golden Balls: two parties get the same thing or no one gets anything at all. ▶ this video