I’m seeing one too many people blaming social media for this and social media for that because it’s just simply - social media. I think about this because I believe that you shouldn’t blame the tool because it is a tool, but blame the person who uses the tool for their intent.

Which means I’m on the side of the camp that actually knows lots of people abuse social media and has it demonized. It’s absolutely silly to just blame a concept or an idea for just being as is. So everyone else is going around blaming and blaming social media for their problems. Not too much the individuals that have contaminated it with their empty-brained existences.

And we all know that some of the more popular social media platforms are controlled by devoid-of-reality sychophants in Zuck, Spez, Musk that sways and stirs the volume of people on their platform with their equally as devoid ideas in how to manage.

Social Media, whether you like it or not, has a use. It’s a useful tool to engage with eachother as close as possible. Might be a bit saturated with many platforms to choose from.

But I just think social media being blamed for just being as is, is such a backwards way of thinking.

  • aasatru
    1•24 days ago

    The prisoner’s dilemma depends on the fact that the two prisoners cannot cooperate. If you allow information to flow between them it’s literally not a dilemma any more.

    So yes.

    If you mean cooperation with the police, how the hell did you derive that from my text?

    • aasatru
      1•24 days ago

      I should also add that the prisoner’s dilemma is only a dilemma when it is played in only one round. Once it becomes a game of several rounds cooperation arises as the dominant strategy.

      Then again, I’m not sure how the prisoner’s dilemma is relevant here in the first place, I just thought it was a funny point to make.

      • @[email protected]English
        2•24 days ago

        only a dilemma when it is played in only one round.

        There is no fixed solution for the repeated case:

        in such a simulation, tit-for-tat will almost always come to dominate, though nasty strategies will drift in and out of the population because a tit-for-tat population is penetrable by non-retaliating nice strategies, which in turn are easy prey for the nasty strategies. Dawkins showed that here, no static mix of strategies forms a stable equilibrium, and the system will always oscillate between bounds

        (1)

        • aasatru
          3•24 days ago

          For cooperation to emerge between rational players, the number of rounds must be unknown or infinite. In that case, “always defect” may no longer be a dominant strategy. As shown by Robert Aumann in a 1959 paper, rational players repeatedly interacting for indefinitely long games can sustain cooperation.

          • @[email protected]English
            2•24 days ago

            Those quotes are saying the same thing: no dominating strategy emerges. Neither full defection, nor full cooperation. It oscillates.

            • aasatru
              3•24 days ago

              I guess there’s a reason people argued about this dilemma for so long in the literature. :)

    • @[email protected]English
      2•24 days ago

      If you allow information to flow between them it’s literally not a dilemma any more.

      That’s novel information. Where did you learn that?

      • aasatru
        1•24 days ago

        Two prisoners are arrested.

        Both are given a choice: Rat out your buddy, and we’ll let you go with one year in prison. Keep your moth shut and we’ll give you four years. If you keep your moth shut and your buddy rats you out, you’ll get ten. If you both rat, you both get eight years.

        The dominant strategy of both prisoners is to speak: In either case, ratting on their buddy will lower their punishment. However, if both prisoners choose this strategy, they end up losing collectively: Rather than both receiving four years as they would if they both kept their moth shut, they both yet eight years because they both talk.

        That’s the basics of the dilemma. The years don’t matter, just the ranking of preferences.

        If the prisoners can communicate, they will know that the other prisoner didn’t talk, and if one prisoner opens his mouth, he will know that the other prisoner will immediately do the same.

        I learned the prisoner’s dilemma when I studied game theory. The fact that it depends on a lack of information flowing between the prisoners and that snitching is only the dominant strategy when it’s a single-round game is just parts of the assumptions of the dilemma.

        • @[email protected]English
          2•24 days ago

          If the prisoners can communicate, they will know that the other prisoner didn’t talk

          They do not, as lying exists

          • aasatru
            1•24 days ago

            Well, sure, it’s if they are in the same room or they can hear through the walls or whatever. An actual flow of information, not just them lying to each other. I assumed that was obvious.

            • @[email protected]English
              2•24 days ago

              That’s like saying poker is a solved game if you can view eachothers cards :D

              I assumed it was obvious that it would remain a game where full knowledge of the game state is never granted to a participant. And the variant you proposed just added a communication channel.

              That’s to say: it stays realistic.

              • aasatru
                2•24 days ago

                Yeah, when I stated that it literally wouldn’t be a dilemma any more it’s because having the prisoners sitting in the same interrogation room would destroy it, the same way playing poker with your cards backwards would destroy the game to the point where it cannot really be considered poker any more.

                Wasn’t making a smarter point than that. :)