> There are a lot of human systems that look like the Everything Game, but what makes the Everything Game unique is that it’s mainly implemented in networked software and it happens at scale. Without all three of those things — the network, the software, and the scale — it’s not the Everything Game.
Sorry, I don't get this distinction between human systems and the supposed Everything Game. Is it the human network is less connected? Is it that human brain is less stringent and more arbitrary than software? Is it the scale of human bureaucracy is smaller than the internet? I'd answer no to all three questions, maybe conditional yes to the second one.
> I suspect that when everything is mediated through networked software at scale, then everything becomes about signal manipulation and attempts to discover structure for the purpose of arbitraging your way into the top of the power law distribution.
Again, I don't see when has the human society been any different. School be like that, job seeking be like that, entrepreneurship be like that, politics be like that. Maybe that's because I am too young to have witnessed a better time before, in which case, I'd appreciate if you could describe one.
> This strikes me as no way to have a civilization, and I suspect that at some point we’re all going to find that out.
At least the software network has yet to have enough history to have a world war or a famine on its hand.
On the other hand, the universe of Final Fantasy, the cuteness of Pokemons, the thrill in League of Legends... Much is still left to humans other than the game, even in computer games. Smithsonian Museums won't suddenly start throwing away artifacts which don't attract visits. Congress Library won't suddenly start ditching books which don't attract reads. National parks will still be open and maintained. We will still be humans, for good or bad.
It sounds like your frustration is not really with the software per se, but the game which is currently implemented by the software, which is global liberal capitalism. Now that sounds like an interesting post I'd pay to read. ;) signal signal
Thanks a lot for this article, top read of my week, resonating with my thoughts.
I think game theory is eventually the sole human compliant model to model any systems of humans.
Physics can model linear systems, Biology can model non linear systems but you need games to model meta linear systems of humans that can play with the lines, locally or globally.
This is especially true now that what you call "scaled network software" produced a single interconnected system of humans, aka Connected Humanity.
The solution for me is thus not to fight against the game, but to play the right one, which, thanks to mechanism design, can be proved to have explicit rules that produce locally and globally satisfying results, make it explicitly playful and useful with the right ergonomics and ergology, and make it fair, right and well enough that nobody wants to break its rules anymore.
> There are a lot of human systems that look like the Everything Game, but what makes the Everything Game unique is that it’s mainly implemented in networked software and it happens at scale. Without all three of those things — the network, the software, and the scale — it’s not the Everything Game.
Sorry, I don't get this distinction between human systems and the supposed Everything Game. Is it the human network is less connected? Is it that human brain is less stringent and more arbitrary than software? Is it the scale of human bureaucracy is smaller than the internet? I'd answer no to all three questions, maybe conditional yes to the second one.
> I suspect that when everything is mediated through networked software at scale, then everything becomes about signal manipulation and attempts to discover structure for the purpose of arbitraging your way into the top of the power law distribution.
Again, I don't see when has the human society been any different. School be like that, job seeking be like that, entrepreneurship be like that, politics be like that. Maybe that's because I am too young to have witnessed a better time before, in which case, I'd appreciate if you could describe one.
> This strikes me as no way to have a civilization, and I suspect that at some point we’re all going to find that out.
At least the software network has yet to have enough history to have a world war or a famine on its hand.
On the other hand, the universe of Final Fantasy, the cuteness of Pokemons, the thrill in League of Legends... Much is still left to humans other than the game, even in computer games. Smithsonian Museums won't suddenly start throwing away artifacts which don't attract visits. Congress Library won't suddenly start ditching books which don't attract reads. National parks will still be open and maintained. We will still be humans, for good or bad.
It sounds like your frustration is not really with the software per se, but the game which is currently implemented by the software, which is global liberal capitalism. Now that sounds like an interesting post I'd pay to read. ;) signal signal
Thanks a lot for this article, top read of my week, resonating with my thoughts.
I think game theory is eventually the sole human compliant model to model any systems of humans.
Physics can model linear systems, Biology can model non linear systems but you need games to model meta linear systems of humans that can play with the lines, locally or globally.
This is especially true now that what you call "scaled network software" produced a single interconnected system of humans, aka Connected Humanity.
The solution for me is thus not to fight against the game, but to play the right one, which, thanks to mechanism design, can be proved to have explicit rules that produce locally and globally satisfying results, make it explicitly playful and useful with the right ergonomics and ergology, and make it fair, right and well enough that nobody wants to break its rules anymore.
That's what I'm producing with https://umanitus.com