“Not every exchange is zero-sum” yes they are. Any game can be made zero-sum by adding a player whose outcomes are the negative of the sum of everyone else’s outcomes. In the real world, that player is known as the Devil.
@morallawwithin Stolen from Scott Alexander or did he steal it from you?
@griggori What, did he make this joke
@morallawwithin I did not expect “in the real world” to be followed by “Devil.” The whole purpose of the phrase is to exclude the superstitious and the supernatural: that’s literally why we use it.
@headgameus That’s only true assuming the Devil isn’t real
@morallawwithin Sure, an omnipotent being could make every exchange zero sum. What a crappy god to worship, boo. I prefer Dionysus with a cheese platter.
@morallawwithin banger
@morallawwithin this is powerful social tech. instead of trying to get people to embrace positive sum thinking, something that is clearly unnatural to most, just raise them to piss off demons who hate trade and cooperation
@morallawwithin *to people about to make a pareto improving exchange* isn't there someone you forgot to ask?
@morallawwithin Although then you also need to add God who gets double utility from every successful exchange happening anywhere so it all turns out ok
@morallawwithin "that player is known as the Devil"
@morallawwithin None of this win win garbage. You are punishing the devil through your cooperation.
@morallawwithin We Should Kill the Devil
@morallawwithin the goal of any such game is to kill him. Even if he's constituted by 10^100 shrimps (especially, actually)
@morallawwithin wow!
@morallawwithin And he eternally wills evil, but in so doing, eternally works good.
@morallawwithin I don’t think this negates the statement that “not every exchange is zero sum” it just proves that some exchanges legitimately are, and we can tell the difference.
@morallawwithin “Sataniel’s position is self-consistent,” said Uriel, without looking up from the parchment he was writing his proof on. “It’s like representing our desires in a utility function, then multiplying by negative one.”
@morallawwithin Adding an external “Devil” character doesn’t make an exchange zero sum. It’s just externalizing net loss or gain. And the people involved are still experiencing a negative sum, a positive sum, or a zero sum, unless they’re being deceived by the devil.
@morallawwithin The Devil exists on a plane even more real than physical reality: hypothetical game theory problems
@morallawwithin I literally would have said ‘Unsong ass post’ but I already saw Scott Alexander liked it
@morallawwithin Great tweet, Flo.
@morallawwithin Implications of this??
@morallawwithin Then you put the devil in the cuck shed.
@morallawwithin Is the Lord of Darkness meaningfully a player, though, if He does not have any moves?
@morallawwithin But thinking of it as a network, devil node should connect to all the other nodes. But who wants to connect with someone who, every time you interact with them, leaves you feeling like it's a zero-sum exchange?
@morallawwithin Well don't deal with the devil
@morallawwithin Partially. The solution to a problem is on a higher level than the problem. At the level the exchange initially occurs, it appears zero-sum, but transcending (integrating, solving the problem) reveals that it doesn't have to be. This is what much of life is about.
@morallawwithin that player needs a representative, or maybe a lawyer or negotiator... some kind of advocate...
@morallawwithin you know the way
@morallawwithin lol at "in the real world". The real world being famous for bounded games haha or... the devil?
@morallawwithin Devil in the real world?
@morallawwithin So the Devil always loses?
@morallawwithin Is there some reason God would want or need something to make everything zero-sum (from at least 1 perspective), as part of creation or allness or something?
@morallawwithin aw poor devil 😟😟
@morallawwithin "Ok but what if there were two players whose outcome ex the negative sum of everyone else's?"