Keywords: public goods, cooperation, destructive agents, cycles
Abstract: "Understanding the emergence of cooperation is a central issue in evolutionary game theory. The hardest setup for the attainment of cooperation in a population of individuals is the Public Goods game in which cooperative agents generate a common good at their own expenses, while defectors "free-ride" this good. Eventually this causes the exhaustion of the good, a situation which is bad for everybody. Previous results have shown that introducing reputation, allowing for volunteer participation, punishing defectors, rewarding cooperators or structuring agents, can enhance cooperation. Here we present a model which shows how the introduction of rare, malicious agents -that we term jokers- performing just destructive actions on the other agents induce bursts of cooperation. The appearance of jokers promotes a rock-paper-scissors dynamics, where jokers outbeat defectors and cooperators outperform jokers, which are subsequently invaded by defectors. Thus, paradoxically, the existence of destructive agents acting indiscriminately promotes cooperation."
Keywords: Evolutionary game theory; Social dilemma; Free-rider problem; Agent based simulation; Social vaccine
Abstract
"Although there is much support for the punishment system as a sophisticated approach to resolving social dilemmas, more than a few researchers have also pointed out the limitations of such an approach. Second-order free riding is a serious issue facing the punishment system. Various pioneering works have suggested that an anti-social behavior or noise stemming from a mutation may, surprisingly, be helpful for avoiding second-order freeloaders. In this work, we show through mathematical analysis and an agent-based simulation of a model extending the meta-norms game that the coercive introduction of a small number of non-cooperators can maintain a cooperative regime robustly. This paradoxical idea was inspired by the effect of a vaccine, which is a weakened pathogen injected into a human body to create antibodies and ward off infection by that pathogen. Our expectation is that the coercive introduction of a few defectors, i.e., a social vaccine, will help maintain a highly cooperative regime because it will ensure that the punishment system works."
I've been thinking about this subject of "cooperation" for the last couple of days (also thanks in part to some links which made it to the front page of HN), and I have something to say about this:
> Eventually this causes the exhaustion of the good, a situation which is bad for everybody. (...) where jokers outbeat defectors and cooperators outperform jokers, which are subsequently invaded by defectors. Thus, paradoxically, the existence of destructive agents acting indiscriminately promotes cooperation."
I'd day that this culture of cooperation for defeating "jokers "doesn't apply to all cultures. It certainly doesn't apply to mine (somewhere in SE-Europe, on the fringe of the Balkans), where a realistic similar scenario would look somth like this:
> Joker does his bad stuff, he shares some of his spoils with his relatives and very close acquaintances (god-fathers, god-sons etc.). These latter people are also part of the community that supposedly should cooperate in annihilating the Joker. Is fair to say that they won't. You've now got a fractured community, with some of its members (the Joker's friends and relatives) having no interest in "cooperation", and more importantly having the economical and power-related means of silencing the part of the community that would want to seek justice (because when you do bad stuff you usually do it in order to increase your economical and power-standing among your community). The Joker becomes an example for other people who see that doing nasty stuff supposedly pays off if you've got enough people by your side. Rinse and repeat.
Aaron Swartz's theory is easier to implement where the Joker is an external element of the community, think immigrants, Jews in early 20-th century Europe, Armenians in late-Ottoman times etc, and I'd say that he's right, those communities actually got a lot more cohesive in chasing out the foreign Joker-like actor(s).
I think the point of the "Joker" archetype (as opposed to the "defector" archetype) is that the Joker's actions are purely malicious, not self-interested. In other words, nobody benefits, not even the Joker. In the movie this includes actions like burning money and blowing up hospitals; in real life, it could include actions like nuclear terrorism, destroying holy sites, genetically engineering plagues for the extinction of humanity, blowing up buildings, wanton destruction of famous landmarks, etc.
The idea is that when faced with an enemy whose actions are bad for everyone, all the people who previously had been engaging in conduct that was bad for everyone else but good for themselves will be forced to cooperate, lest the world burn to the ground.
Abstract:
"The emergence and promotion of cooperation are two of the main issues in evolutionary game theory, as cooperation is amenable to exploitation by defectors, which take advantage of cooperative individuals at no cost, dooming them to extinction. It has been recently shown that the existence of purely destructive agents (termed jokers) acting on the common enterprises (public goods games) can induce stable limit cycles among cooperation, defection, and destruction when infinite populations are considered. These cycles allow for time lapses in which cooperators represent a relevant fraction of the population, providing a mechanism for the emergence of cooperative states in nature and human societies. Here we study analytically and through agent-based simulations the dynamics generated by jokers in finite populations for several selection rules. Cycles appear in all cases studied, thus showing that the joker dynamics generically yields a robust cyclic behavior not restricted to infinite populations. We also compute the average time in which the population consists mostly of just one strategy and compare the results with numerical simulations."
Are there any historical examples of "a joker"? The sole example cited by the article is Nazi Germany which forced the US and the USSR to work together for a short time. That doesn't to me seem to be a real example of a "joker" however, that's just the enemy of my enemy being my friend kind of thing. Hitler wasn't just fucking things up for the sake of it, but had a very specific world he was trying to create. The Joker wanted chaos, or if he wanted anything else, doesn't tip his hand, being an unreliable source of information. How many different ways did he get those scars?
I'm just asking because scholarly articles about the actions of fictional psychopaths seem a bit much. Especially when we are talking about applying it to entire groups of people (nations) without some good examples. Note, this is also different than Swartz's or the author's suggestion - that this cooperation was intended. That's not implied by the movie, nor the joker of the article. This is the first paragraph:
In the recent Hollywood movie The Dark Knight (2008) the
comic character known as the Joker jeopardizes a whole society spreading chaos and destruction with no aim of benefit at it.
That's not Nazi Germany (the sixth paragraph or so and example). Hitler may have had a fucked up sense of societal benefit, but that was his goal, not wanton destruction (at least until he went completely crazy).
I'd expect such characters to get written out of the histories fairly quickly. The point of a "joker" is that they're purely destructive and don't work in anyone's self-interest, not even their own; thus, they're eventually defeated and have nobody that cares about them enough to keep their memory alive.
But thinking about a few examples: Julian Assange is a modern-day joker, with Wikileaks indiscriminately publishing damaging info about many different institutions (several of which would otherwise be at odds with each other). Leon Czolgosz, the anarchist who assassinated William Mckinley, who ironically spurred both cooperation among anarchists and cooperation against anarchists. Heck, the traditional description of Satan very much is the in line with the joker archetype, which makes me wonder if his depiction in religion is a composite of various joker-like characters that people have faced but not wanted to remember.
I'd say nature is the best example. Natural hazards with immediate and predictable effects are much like the joker. It hurts producers and freeloaders equally, and everyone sees them coming.
The dutch 'polder' politics seem like a very fine example of this. I imagine predators are another example. As are very periodic floods or droughts.
I have never understood the raising up of Aaron Swartz to demi-god status by this community. It is tragic that he took his own life and I fully expect to be downvoted here for expressing this opinion as it is a thing you can't say here (http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html).
He was young, showed great promise, was clearly ahead of his age, everybody who knew him found him to be a genuinely nice and caring person...
Is it really that surprising that people are genuinely upset he took his own life after being harassed by the US government? This is a community that tends to dislike extreme prosecution, copyright laws and generally agrees with Aaron's ideology.
And on another note: Can HN not care about a guy without people saying we're "raising him to demi-god status"? With how often that accusation is thrown around, you'd think we have enough to sell our demi-god surplus to cults in need of more.
PS: The "I'll be downvoted for my contrarian idea but ..." stuff is for reddit, not here, tbh.
>everybody who knew him found him to be a genuinely nice and caring person...
Whilst that may be true, I've not read about a lot of tragic deaths where everyone who knew the person thought they were a prick.
The point being raised is "Do we really think his theories had unusual insight/value or is his work being viewed through the lens of his death being tragic?". It seems like an entirely valid question to ask.
In terms of "the joker being a rational actor who achieved his goals". Well personally I think he's misinterpreted the film/characters, but I know i'm not an expert on such things so the most I can say is that I'll take his view with a pretty chunky pinch of salt.
I found it frustrating that famous technologists and thought-leaders had stories and praises for him after he died, which were not seen while he was alive, fighting prosecution, and needing their support. From an archived Wikipedia page, you see few statements of support: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Swartz&oldi... Aaron was private about his difficulties with the case, but it was not at all a secret... I think many people -especially those with influence in the open data space- were aware of it and doing nothing.
I agree with every paragraph, that comment bothered me too.
But I also take issue with that false placement of him, that is again expressed in that OP title: "Aaron Swartz’s Theory on How to Save the World". That is not serious and is also in a way of disrespecting him.
It is remotly similar when Obama got its Nobel Price. I think it was done with good intentions, but was completely misplaced.
Uncharitably throwing misplaced attributed at a deceased person, because it goes well with the intention of selling a book is not human, but kind of perverse.
You're much more likely to get downvoted for expressing that you expect to be downvoted. It shows lack of faith in the community you're participating in. If you believe what you're saying and express it in the most civil way you can, please do just that.
While your first statement is true what has faith in the community has to do with it? Maybe OP just knows this community and that is enough reason not to "have faith" in it?
It's an intellectual cop out. If you think you will be down voted, you should consider how you can rephrase what you're saying so you aren't. I'm not saying to change what you say, just how you say it.
"I'm going to get down voted for saying this" is the HN equivalent "I don't mean to be a jerk, but [says jerk things]".
From what I've observed, the HN community values civil and substantive discussion which relies, in part, on assuming good faith on behalf of the participants. Expressing that you believe that others won't evaluate comments fairly degrades this good faith.
You're correct. A good bit of my karma comes from doing exactly that. Plus, they almost universally hate comments about downvotes. So, two reasons to simply write a civil counterpoint that doesn't use that word at all.
You can't deny that he took a persomal risk for the greater good, namely the free dissemination of public knowledge. And that's basically the definition of heroic.
No one here doubts that he was well-meaning and good at heart. He was just very young, extremely naive, and seemingly incapable of seeing what he did from another perspective, which lead to the whole tragedy. I would call the whole thing a cautionary tale.
Sci-Hub did a better job of making knowledge available
What he did was inconsequential and then he preferred to quit rather than face the consequences (to which he would probably get support from the whole internet)
A.S. looks like more than a prankster who never got told that actions have consequences and an idealist that was too naive for his own good.
Saying that he merely "quit", like he just walked out of the room or something, extremely trivializes depression and suicide. Also, the consequences in this case were disproportionate to the crime, with JSTOR listing inflated damages, and the prosecutor wanting to make an examples of him.
Lastly your whole comment is framed as a personal attack. You say "inconsequential" even though we have no clue what he was planning to do since he was made to delete the files, and you say "prankster" like was just trolling MIT and JSTOR. I recommend instead that you instead try to read a little about him, he accomplished much more then you gave him credit for.
I agree. His story is tragic, but why was he considered so profoundly enlightened? I have read almost everything published about him and failed to be grasped in the same way.
He is estimated by many people for his multiple significant contributions that he started at a young age. He also made mistakes and a very big one (committing suicide).
You say you don't understand why people estimate him. What's the point in saying that ? Who cares ?
Are you asking the arguments justifying why people seam to estimate him so much ?
Are you calling back into question the arguments justifying that he is estimated ? Them give us your arguments.
That you don't understand that Aaron is estimated could have many explanations. You could be stupid. You could discard or ignore data points. Your "measuring stick" could be bogus or too subjective. Some people may glorify him as semi-god because they are themselves stupid or want to piggy bag their reputation with the one of Aaron. Or maybe Aaron was just an impostor as you might be inferring.
My feeling is that "ignorance" is overrated these days. A comment that just say "I don't understand X" has very low pertinence value and, in my opinion, should not be upvoted on hacker news.
Please reformulate the point you would like to make and present your arguments. Only arguments are really relevant. I downvoted you for the reasons above.
And there is the problem. He is being treated as a symbol, rather than a fellow human being who walked the planet with the rest of us and had his own demons.
The difficult but necessary thing is to describe his real public influence and legacy without hurting those close to him.
His ideas had always much less weight then his persona that was created by others and to some degree by him. There is no reason to judge him for that, because we all strive for significance and nobody is perfect. But I agree we should stop to further support that bumptious memory of him.
In the end, he was also a victim of dynamics that where not in his influence. There was people who wanted to make an example of him, because he (like many others) wanted to set information free.
I liked him because he was good looking in a JFK kind of sense. His confident charisma was pleasant and comforting, his words never misplaced. I miss him.
Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for
themselves. The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries
in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of
private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the
sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.
Aaron Swartz seemed to not know how the world actually worked. It isn't a bunch of rational actors that love tech and information. Quite the opposite. One can't save the world without first diving deep into how it works. One then realizes there's stuff they can and can't change on top of lots of biases and trends in responses. Then, one builds on those elements of human nature to focus on the things they can change.
He didn't do that. Instead, he focused on what can't be changed by committing an illegal act with hope it would be meaningful to society or courts. The result was that he killed himself after that failed catastrophically. We might learn a great deal from Aaron Swarts but not how to change the world. He's the least qualified to tell us about that because it appears he never understood it to begin with.
Instead, we can just learn from and remember the good things he did that his mind was uniquely capable of doing. He has quite a resume of that. This approach is honest and gives him due credit.
I don't know anything about the guy other than having used Infogami (underrated) and followed early Reddit, but Swartz was always a brilliant but troubled guy. He was very intelligent but also just a kid, figuring things out in his own life while the tech world figured itself out. What happened to him was a tragedy, but Swartz engaged in illegal activity and found out his opponent was a lot more committed and effective than he anticipated. Unless he became Mandela in prison that wasn't an effective strategy.
In his essay, Swartz strongly supported the Joker’s policy platform. Although the Joker presents himself to the world as a deranged and murderous clown, Swartz claimed that the Joker is actually “homo economicus,” a supremely rational actor, the character who best understands both the problems facing Gotham City and the best solutions to those problems. Batman might have had better gear and Harvey Dent might have had the public’s sympathy—but the Joker understood game theory, the best weapon of all.
Though the Joker’s methods—such as burning large piles of money and blowing up hospitals—might have been controversial, the logic behind them was sound. “And the crazy thing is that it works!” Swartz enthused. Not only did the Joker end up ridding the city of organized crime, he convinced Gotham’s residents to re-evaluate their world and their roles in it. “The movie concludes by emphasizing that Batman must become the villain,” Swartz wrote, “but as usual it never stops to notice that the Joker is actually the hero.”
This is absurd (at least how it is portrayed by the author). In Nolan's movie the Joker is never portrayed as anything but a contradictory psycopath who engages in torture killings and according to his own words has no plans. He's a "dog chasing cars", even if that behavior was still rational. What solution did the Joker have again? The author closes with it, as though it's profound, but it's really just a screwed up view of justice that isn't even supported by the movie.
In his working paper, Swartz described his new plan for the future of activism. Rather than form a political action group focused on one single issue or tactic, Swartz proposed that organizers should assemble groups of people supremely competent in certain relevant disciplines — investigators, activists, lawyers, lobbyists, policy experts, political strategists, journalists, and publicists — who could combine their efforts and advocate effectively for any issue, big or small. Swartz envisioned a flexible, intelligent, multifaceted task force that would learn from its mistakes and refine its tactics accordingly: a team of specialists that, cumulatively, worked as generalists.
From a practical standpoint, this is interesting, though it sounds ripe for abuse and mob justice. How different is it from Wikileaks or even Anonymous? Isn't the problem with such a system is everyone always thinks they are the good guys?
Just please stop with the psychohistory and hagiography. Stop trying to say what Swartz was thinking (the author does this throughout). You don't know. If you want to compete with reality you have to be realistic. Stop using his persona to support vague notions of how the world works.
> From a practical standpoint, this is interesting, though it sounds ripe for abuse and mob justice. How different is it from Wikileaks or even Anonymous? Isn't the problem with such a system is everyone always thinks they are the good guys?
I'm wary of such universal teams which abstract away their own raison d'être. This is what gave us the modern - how I like to call them - toilet paper companies, i.e. companies which couldn't give a rat's ass about what they're making, as long as it is profitable (and that would gladly switch from building medical devices to making toilet paper if that had better ROI - hence the name). I can't deny such focus on gaming the structure is effective - much like MBAs with abstract knowledge of how to run a money-making machine are effective at doing just that - to the detriment of all customers, who actually care about the products.
arXiv:1103.3257: The Joker effect: cooperation driven by destructive agents (2011)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.3257
Keywords: public goods, cooperation, destructive agents, cycles
Abstract: "Understanding the emergence of cooperation is a central issue in evolutionary game theory. The hardest setup for the attainment of cooperation in a population of individuals is the Public Goods game in which cooperative agents generate a common good at their own expenses, while defectors "free-ride" this good. Eventually this causes the exhaustion of the good, a situation which is bad for everybody. Previous results have shown that introducing reputation, allowing for volunteer participation, punishing defectors, rewarding cooperators or structuring agents, can enhance cooperation. Here we present a model which shows how the introduction of rare, malicious agents -that we term jokers- performing just destructive actions on the other agents induce bursts of cooperation. The appearance of jokers promotes a rock-paper-scissors dynamics, where jokers outbeat defectors and cooperators outperform jokers, which are subsequently invaded by defectors. Thus, paradoxically, the existence of destructive agents acting indiscriminately promotes cooperation."
reply