I agree with you generally on the treatment of economics I fiction. However, Francis Spufford’s *Red Plenty* is absolutely fantastic on why the USSR system did not and could not work
On the computer science-economics question, I admit it’s pretty difficult to identify strong linkages (which is part of why I asked). Some categories I have thought of are (1) how computer science can provide a rigorous versions of bounded rationality, for example heuristic search and polynomial time complexity Nash equilibria, (2) computer security/cryptography and threat models for how information leaks and can be protected (Integrity, Authenticity, Anonymity, etc), (3) credible/verifiable mechanisms for specific coordination and information sharing without the use of a trusted third party (zero-knowledge proofs, that one using the fundamental theorem of algebra), and (4) mechanism design guarantees for competitive activities like auctions which allow static algorithms to be employed without needing to be updated when competitors change strategies. The Tim Roughgarden recommendation is appreciated, I think I watched some of his lectures on YouTube at one point but didn’t get super far. I’ll try to find time to check them out again.
On the social deception games question I think I was mainly interested in more advanced/complex mafia style games like Blood on the Clocktower. In these more complex versions, there is often an effort to mask the villains with plausible alibis and incentives for good players to act suspiciously. If I had to sum up the intention of many of the mechanics, I would say they try to engineer scenarios where people can confidently (and repeatedly) draw incorrect conclusions from valid evidence
I agree with you generally on the treatment of economics I fiction. However, Francis Spufford’s *Red Plenty* is absolutely fantastic on why the USSR system did not and could not work
Meant to say “secret sharing” rather than “that one using the fundamental theorem of algebra”
On the computer science-economics question, I admit it’s pretty difficult to identify strong linkages (which is part of why I asked). Some categories I have thought of are (1) how computer science can provide a rigorous versions of bounded rationality, for example heuristic search and polynomial time complexity Nash equilibria, (2) computer security/cryptography and threat models for how information leaks and can be protected (Integrity, Authenticity, Anonymity, etc), (3) credible/verifiable mechanisms for specific coordination and information sharing without the use of a trusted third party (zero-knowledge proofs, that one using the fundamental theorem of algebra), and (4) mechanism design guarantees for competitive activities like auctions which allow static algorithms to be employed without needing to be updated when competitors change strategies. The Tim Roughgarden recommendation is appreciated, I think I watched some of his lectures on YouTube at one point but didn’t get super far. I’ll try to find time to check them out again.
On the social deception games question I think I was mainly interested in more advanced/complex mafia style games like Blood on the Clocktower. In these more complex versions, there is often an effort to mask the villains with plausible alibis and incentives for good players to act suspiciously. If I had to sum up the intention of many of the mechanics, I would say they try to engineer scenarios where people can confidently (and repeatedly) draw incorrect conclusions from valid evidence