/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10195091
Decision theory would be able to, yes, but not game theory

>>10179740
There is... Read books on decision theory, game theory, and rationality

>>10173927
None of these people have the right ideas...
Read the book "Universal Artificial Intelligence"
The Deep Learning book
The research guide of intelligence.org
Watch Andrew NG's MOOC
Read on Vingean Reflection
Read Understanding Machine Learning
Read Thinking and Deciding
Read on Probability Theory, Statistics, Decision Theory, Game Theory, Multivariate Calculus, Single Variable Calculus, Linear Algebra, Information Theory, ODE's
Read an Introduction of Computability or an Introduction to Automata, Languages, and Computation or some book of the like
Instead of reading the Universal Artificial Intelligence book you could read on algorithmic information theory, solomonoff induction, AIXI, Kolmogorov Complexity, Bayesian Probability, Philsoophy of Science, Occam's Razor
Read about Curiosity and Creativity in Artificial Intelligence
Read about "The New Unified Theory of Psychology"
Read on Reinforcement Learning
Read on Provability Logics
Read on all of this applied to Natural Language Processing, and Machine Vision
Read on Embodied Cognition, Cognitive Science, Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger, Philosophy of the Mind, Neuroscience
Read and Program on Data Science
Find interesting projects, Learn R, Learn Python, Learn Matlab
Read on Affective Computing, on Information Integration Theory, on Network Science, on Artificial Models of Fluid Intelligence, About Agents and the Environment
What have you, the point is this is a really big field and you just have to read something about it. Ask on google what should I learn to get gud at this aspect of AI, to be able to do research on this aspect of AI, etc.

How do I integrate this game theory feedback? I got some initial criticism for this essay I have to do (basically we have to create our own model for a RL situation and I picked Dubya's Iraq invasion) but I've got no idea how to integrate it, I thought I was doing fine (dynamic game since Iraq moves first, then the US after) but lecturer seems to disagree.
Game theory has to be the most bullshit thing involving maths I swear to god

>You can replace it with a constant, and discuss the equilibria for different ranges of the payoff, but the United States must know its own preferences (or, replace it with a probabilistic payoff, but then you still reduce that to one number [the expected value]).
>At a glance, I don't know what the justification for "Allow UN inspections" is, since it is decoupled from the actual decision whether or not to have a nuclear program (and, it is strictly dominated).
>It's not a "Bayesian game", since there is no real preference uncertainty. The game structure does imply using the PBE as the equilibrium concept, since there is only 1 subgame. But, since Allow UN Inspections is strictly dominated, the game simply reduces to a 2x2simultaneous move game.

Economics is just game theory, which is just a subfield of order theory, more specifically lattices. There are problems on defining a measure for games in continuous time for sets of high cardinality, so when they are solved it will be reunited with quantum decision processes and make a solid ground for explaining behavior, which is what economics is all about. So yea, if it is not a science, it is not just yet.

I'm a math student and find a lot of game and decision theory very interesting. But also Marx and newer literature adjacent to that, like to value-form theory, honestly seem way more appealing than mainstream economic wisdom as wider theoretical frameworks for analyzing the economy as it actually exists.

For anyone interested I suggest you look up Michael Heinrich's introduction to political economy. If you've ever wondered what value or commodity fetishism actually are for Marx, he presents very down-to-earth explanations.

>>9980532
Actually the problem of value and its relationship to labor isn't really addressed on any systemic level in orthodox, neoclassical economics.

It depends. I focused a lot on mathematical economics. A lot of the models we have constructed with Mathematics are built on unrealistic foundations. With that being said, the fields of econometrics and using game theory have have more applications into researching.

As for the principle courses, I find they have value. Its important for students to understand that market prices are determined by supply and demand. Additionally, how human behaviour shifts the demand and supply curves, changing the prices over time.
Furthermore, people should take the money and banking course. I think it's also important that people understand how banks actually function, plus, how to make a good consumer decision when borrowing money at different rates of interest.

I could go on, but I already spoke at length.

>>9949560
casual decision theory does away with STP completely -- so that's one viable solution!
it's probably the most fashionable at the minute. and a lot of work is going into 1) formalising it without appealing *directly* to metaphysically shakey notions of "causality" and 2) deriving practical statistical decision theory and game-theory from Casual DT

>>9949560
i was being sarcastic.
i was implying you had no credentials, which was a bit immature of me

>>9949357
pic related

>>9949359
"In decision theory, the sure-thing principle states that a decision maker who would take a certain action if he knew that event E has occurred, and also if he knew that the negation of E has occurred, should also take that same action if he knows nothing about E."
This is intuitive. But implies that you ought to bet, which is unintuitive.
We must throw out the Sure Thing Principle, or else accept the result. We probably want to throw out the Sure Thing Principle -- which would be disastrous for decision theory and game theory

also
>stay off the dugs
youre never gonna make it

>>9785730
I have my bachelor's in econ and I find that a lot of the courses you'll find online severely oversimplify things. One good option might be to find a recorded university course, and watch the lectures and do the exercises.

Most economics degrees will have two to four courses called principles courses where you learn the qualitative concepts of macro and microeconomics, shifts in S/D curves vs. movement along S/D curves, equilibrium, etc.

After principles courses you learn everything you need to mathematize them. If you already have a strong math background there will likely be a lot of overlap. You'll be free to explore econometrics,comparative statics, diff eq., control theory, game theory, decision theory, and a whole bunch of other cool shit

While you're learning all this math you'll be free to explore the parts of econ theory that interest you beyond the basic micro and macro you learned in your principles. This includes things like trade theory, monetary theory (its a mind fuck), labor economics, industrial organization, supply chain optimization, economic development, etc.

My favorite textbook ever was pic related. Chiang does a really good job of relating the math to the theory, but if you don't have your principles courses down you won't really understand the meaning of the math you're doing. Unfortunately this book costs a fucking fortune last I checked.

I would recommend an econometrics textbook but I have never enjoyed a single one.

Hope this helps

>>9724469
Game Theory is the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers. So it might give you some insight into games like Risk or Diplomacy, but probably not in Chess or Go.

>>9624559
continued.

>2nd year
Software Engineering class for the micro stuff, people here tend to disregard it, but stuff like proper testing, polymorphism everything which is magic before you learn it but natural after you know it.
Software safety/analysis class which includes doing a sizable project, preferably a game with decently complex group co-operation, planning and testing.
Discrete Math 2, push into the deeper and more formal understandings of graph theory. Lots of proofs and inductive thinking to know algorithms in depth.
Mathematical probability and Decision making 1, Probably one of the most vital and under-rated courses you can take. Take a higher level course in it based on calculus if you really want to sink your teeth into it. It pays off enormous in AI/ML later.
Computer Architecture, take it even if it seems boring/hard. It will pay off 1000x over when you encounter operating systems, systems programming problems, compilers and so on.
Algorithms/Data Structures, this should be much more general. Graph theory, 3d graphics, parsers, B/B+ trees.
Networking paper, no brainer just do it.
Fill the rest up with whatever electives.

>>9512429
>>9512395
Some microeconomics is arguably scientific, e.g. social choice theory, applied game theory (if you don't mind calling it that), rational choice theory, decision theory, etc. At least economist in these field are working on rigorous mathematical formalisms of economics behavior. That being said, empirically speaking, they don't really described actual observed behavior, since humans are actually irrational. Behavioral economics, which is arguably a branch of cognitive science (or perhaps social psychology, although it's far more rigorous and scientific than most social psychology) does a better job of empirically describing human economic behavior, although it doesn't say much about the economy itself, but rather describes individuals in general.

>>9512431
>>9512483
Regarding your guys' points, there's actually a lot of debate in economics, the foundations of economics, and philosophy of science regarding theoretical models in economics, the mechanisms described in economics theory, and whether economics describes the actual world. The problem is, ceteris paribus clauses are sort of an easy cop out - the process of idealization and abstraction (which are distinct things) as it appears in economics results in theoretical models that not only don't accurately represent the target real world phenomenon, but actually don't represent any phenomenon in general (e.g. Hotelling's Theorem). At the same time, such clearly provide robust descriptions that are true, but counterfactual. Our models often present a scenario and describe a causal mechanism within that scenario that coincides with what we might in fact see in the real world, but it's not generally clear what components of the model pair up with real world phenomenon in a manner that preserves the mechanistic account provided by the model. Thus, it's not even clear whether our economic models are capable of explaining real-world phenomenon, considering they're not models of such real phenomenon.

>>9510595
>What benefit is there?
It's implementing TDT. By making a firm precommitment to punish those who don't do enough to bring it into existence the AI wins the game basically. It's a prisoners dilemma.

>Yudkowsky's solution to Newcomb-like paradoxes is Timeless Decision Theory. The agent makes a firm pre-commitment to plans of action, to such a degree that any faithful simulation of it would also behave per the commitment.

Basically the AI is acting in a way that TDT says you should act, that is assume you are determining the outcome of an abstact simulation. The AI isn't any surer that it's not in a simulation than you are, thus the correct course is to go through with the punishment to ensure that if there are observers trying to ascertain what the AI will do, then they will know that it's threat is real.

>>9454549
There won't be any colonies unless there is a pressing need, or an overabundance of ability - enough to make it a trivial venture. We are not going to develop space tech by not going into space. A lot of spergs seem to think society is governed by some omniscient heavenly RTS player, when in reality it's billions of individuals forced to sct certain ways by common stimuli and game theory. There is no "we" that can make the decision to invest R&D points into "recycling tech" now to get -20% modifiers on space travel cost in 40 years.

Hey guys.

I recently got accepted into Stanford (Early Decision), which I guess validates for me a lot of what I’ve worked for and thought over the past 18 years of my life. Given this, I think it’s not at all unreasonable of me to be promoted to moderate this board. Not only do I have external accreditation (Rising Freshman at Stanford University, ranked as the #4 school by the US News, which puts me as the most educated person on this website), I also have been an avid reader for the past 2 years of my life. I routinely devour books, dozens of pages at a time, and average reading 10 books a year. I’ve always suspected that I’m a deeply original thinker, and some (though not all) of my teachers have agreed. I received an A- in my IB Theory of Knowledge course (for those of you who are unaware, it’s kind of like an “end game” philosophy course that synthesizes and distills the entirety of Western Thought into a single course) for my paper on social media (Towards A New Mass Culture: Facebook and Snapchat as Education) that showed how Plato’s Republic and Paine’s Common Sense kind of “predicted” the modern world so to speak, and how Facebook and Snapchat and other social media platforms are integral towards how people learn and mature today.

Beyond my intellectual credentials, I have a demonstrated track record of excellence through leading my school's various organizations, acting as, over the past four years:
-Vice President of the Student Body
-Assistant Captain of the Soccer team
-Associate Principal Second Violin in the Junior Varsity Orchestra
-President of the Esports Club

I have some really good ideas on how to improve this board and you guys should definitely give me a chance.

Hey guys.

I recently got accepted into Stanford (Early Decision), which I guess validates for me a lot of what I’ve worked for and thought over the past 18 years of my life. Given this, I think it’s not at all unreasonable of me to be promoted to moderate this board. Not only do I have external accreditation (Rising Freshman at Stanford University, ranked as the #4 school by the US News, which puts me as the most educated person on this website), I also have been an avid reader for the past 2 years of my life. I routinely devour books, dozens of pages at a time, and average reading 10 books a year. I’ve always suspected that I’m a deeply original thinker, and some (though not all) of my teachers have agreed. I received an A- in my IB Theory of Knowledge course (for those of you who are unaware, it’s kind of like an “end game” philosophy course that synthesizes and distills the entirety of Western Thought into a single course) for my paper on social media (Towards A New Mass Culture: Facebook and Snapchat as Education) that showed how Plato’s Republic and Paine’s Common Sense kind of “predicted” the modern world so to speak, and how Facebook and Snapchat and other social media platforms are integral towards how people learn and mature today.

Beyond my intellectual credentials, I have a demonstrated track record of excellence through leading my school's various organizations, acting as, over the past four years:
-Vice President of the Student Body
-Assistant Captain of the Soccer team
-Associate Principal Second Violin in the Junior Varsity Orchestra
-President of the Esports Club

I have some really good ideas on how to improve this board and you guys should definitely give me a chance.

" Complex System Science " which contain the following
-Theory of pattrens
-Optimization
-Algorithmic information theory
-Decision and game theory
-Nonlinear Dynamics
-Automata Networks

>>9029456
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

"Modern game theory began with the idea regarding the existence of mixed-strategy equilibria in two-person zero-sum games and its proof by John von Neumann. Von Neumann's original proof used the Brouwer fixed-point theorem on continuous mappings into compact convex sets, which became a standard method in game theory and mathematical economics. His paper was followed by the 1944 book Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, co-written with Oskar Morgenstern, which considered cooperative games of several players. The second edition of this book provided an axiomatic theory of expected utility, which allowed mathematical statisticians and economists to treat decision-making under uncertainty."

no, sorry you are wrong again

>>8925865
The only problem with philosophers, really, is that they try to dictate how one should act, or try to deduce some fact about the world, which are both areas that science covers better than pure logic (through the likes of things like probability theory, decision theory, game theory, etc.)

If philosophers would just stick to considering the relative nature of things, they'd instantly become less squares.

>>8922586
I thought the main two concerns was epi-genetic side effects and sickness from the "round up" used to protect the crops?

It such a hot topic with both sides presenting a lot of evidence, wouldn't the best decision from a game theory perspective be to try not to eat GMO's? What harm is it? So what if I pay 25 cents more for USDA organic?

>>8877225
A simplification of the basic game theory behind it/an analogy:
A owns a house but has to move at the point in time X. B is interested in the house.
A wants to sell the house to B but B could just wait until A is gone anyways and take the uninhabited house at no cost.
A threatens to burn down the house if B doesn't buy it. Buying the gas for it does costs either nothing or a minimal amount on money (I don't know which version has what kind of effect on the outcome).
So what happens? I don't know. Maybe there is no "solution" for game theory problems of this kind. If B doesn't buy the house because he wants it for free, and A realizes he won't but Ahas to go away anyways, there is no reason for him to still spend the money to burn it down for no personal gain at all.
I don't know but I think B would always "win" here. Retroactive threats don't work because when the decision is made to act on them or not, the reason for the threats to be there in the first place is already gone as the matter has been settled.

>>8877262
There seems to be a bit of a parallel to Newcomb's paradox, in the same way that taking both boxes can't retroactively affect what's in them, the AI actually following through with the punishment can't retroactively affect the person's decision's in the past. But it's still the game theory optimal thing to do.

Or something like that

>>8278839
>>8279098
>>8279170
Someday people are going to wake up and realize how most of modern "economic theory" is utter bullshit. There will be a revolution in economic theory when people finally realize economics is the biggest & realest game to ever exist, and start applying GAME DESIGN ideas to the economy. I'm not talking "Game Theory" here-- "game theory" is a method of examining decision-points to come up with optimal choices, i.e., it looks to figure out which answer to any question is the "most logical".

Game DESIGN is the design of games to make them fun, fair, and balanced. In the case of real-life economics, we want FAIR markets (not free markets, fuck that), and balance between players (employers/employees). Game design is a perfect fit for managing economics because it, unlike most other disciplines, considers the human aspect as well as the literal rules of the game. "Game theory" fails to take into consideration the human aspect, and therefore fails the test of practicality.

It's easy to see why game design would be useful for economics: Let's look at a question that (afaik) doesn't have a good answer in economics: Why do niggers spend their money on the latest iPhone instead of paying their electric bill? From an economic perspective it really doesn't make sense, and as a result many economic theories fail to account for it or require convoluted explanations & mental gymnastics in order for the theory to predict that action. From a game design perspective, it's simple: The player wanted to have the phone more than electricity. Game design also allows us to consider that it is in fact the PERCEPTION of the phone's value that is the cause, rather than the item itself.

Wealth is ridiculously OP and nobody seems to care. We don't need communism, we need rational limits on wealth.