|
|
||
|
Ankündigung: An der RWTH Aachen wird am 07.11.2017 für Unternehmer ein Komplexitäts-Kongress durchgeführt. Die Welt wird immer komplexer. Das erfordert neue Annäherung. Das Programm und mehr zu der Veranstaltung kann unter http://www.complexity-congress.com/ eingesehen und heruntergeladen werden. Objet trouves aus den verschiedenen KomplexitätsTeilmengen ( Finanz-Kunst-Spieltheorie ): http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=829690 Markus Escher Gefangen nicht nur in der Aporie der hypothetischen ZukunftsBeurteilung. Rating und Ranking als Dilemma im Beurteilungsprozess. Die Perspektive wird verdimensioniert. Adopting a Dominant Strategy One of our clients asked us to help them define a set of dominant strategies for a new AI system. The goal was simple: For a given scenario, train the system to achieve better (winning) outcomes no matter what strategies any other competing systems might adopt. In a laboratory, crafting a dominant strategy, where one exists, requires knowledge of contemporary game theory, some math skills, and a significant amount of testing. There’s not a lot of harm to be done trying to get a set of algorithms to obtain the lowest price for an ad or to optimize a media mix. But in the real world, actions come with consequences. Is a short-term win good in the long term? Does winning mean more for me and less for everyone else? Or is winning defined as good for me if it’s also good for everyone else? There’s another consideration. Outside of a gaming environment, a dominant strategy may not always be the best strategy, nor does it necessarily always lead to the best outcomes. Unlike AI systems, human beings are pre-programmed and genetically wired to act in their own self-interest. As the saying goes, “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.” It may sound (or actually be) amoral, but there is some math to back it up.
|
