Elegance in Global Cooperation: Engineering Simplicity, Purity and Correctness

Today, after reading a good chunk of Serious Cryptography, by J. P. Aumasson, I was lamenting over the likeness of computer science and society, and the way that game theory and complexity theory are interlinked. Reflecting on my day’s study, and my view of the world in general, I found myself drawing many comparisons that seemed insightful.

For example, the security of a given cryptographic scheme is in practice dependent on it’s understandability, for if an algorithm is difficult to understand, there is a high likelihood that it will be implemented poorly or misused. That is to say that the number of possible attack vectors scales with complexity.

A system that requires many details to be properly defined is inherently harder to understand. I do not suggest that complexity is bad, but merely a result of solving hard problems. However, the complexity of a solution does not imply it’s efficacy, but rather increases the probability that there is a flaw. This notion may be reduced to the idea that together simplicity and efficacy is virtuous. One might say that an elegant solution is simplified correctness.

To me, this is one of the most fundamental engineering principles. Our intuition for what is good and what is bad is rooted in the elegance we see in the idea. To me, elegance is purity, simplicity and correctness. Nothing more, and nothing less than fit for purpose.

When solving hard problems to deliver value to the world, we reduce our solution to its essence. Such is a proper definition of our solution.

My view of humanity is an ecosystem of beautiful souls that must cooperate for survival. Productive and fair cooperation is tantamount to our survival.

Before I continue, I must state that I am an optimist, and I believe that in general, humans have made progress toward cooperating on a global scale. As our capabilities of travel and communication have grown, so have the numbers of people we attempt to organise, and the geographic size of these clusters of organised cooperation. I suggest that recent technological progress has not been matched by organisational progress when it comes to organising large groups of people. As such, my feeling is that many of the social constructs that we depend on for productive and fair cooperation are no-longer fit for purpose. I also suggest that in engineering terms, our current legal, political and economic mechanisms are monolithic patchworks of progressive solutions mixed with outdated and sometimes irrelevant requirements. To simplify, I suggest that in order to progress further as a civilisation, we must aim for simpler and clearer terms by which we define fair and productive cooperation.

I suggest that the definition of an ideal societal system is akin to a mathematical formula, just as you can devise a proof of correctness in mathematics. Game theory is about creating a structure of incentives such that the sum of incentives to play fairly is greater than the sum of incentives to cheat.

Rather than hopelessly wishing that everyone would take only what they need and contribute on their own accord, we would better ensure that the incentives of the individual align with the incentives of the masses. In other words, ensuring that the system makes cheating less rewarding than fair play.

That is, of course, what the current mechanisms attempt to do, however they have become overly complex, inefficient, and riddled with vulnerabilities. You could liken it to a very insecure cryptographic scheme that is exploited whenever deployed. The forces at play are the same; there is an arbitrage between the risk and reward for cheating because the formal specification by which we govern ourselves is inadequate.

At this point, a reader could feel that the critique of a system has no value in the absence of proposed solutions. However, the precursor to positive change is the understanding of contemporary challenges and issues. It would be equally naive to suggest that the solutions to such hard problems could or should be defined by a single person. Rather, a sound and logical consensus that fosters fair and productive cooperation must be a collaborative effort. Many perspectives and experiences must be considered.

I believe that many principles of engineering, mathematics and game theory may be applied in the conception and definition of an ideal societal fabric by which we may better cooperate fairly and productively. Let us empathise with one-another, and believe that we are headed towards a healthy, compassionate and productive future.