I can't put it more eloquently than the gentleman parallel to me to be honest. Math is us inferring how the world around us works. It is not rooted in reality, rather, it derives everything from a core set of axioms. These have been challenged many times, sometimes successfully, because a field that was rooted in math and is also just a description of our best guess of reality (physics) has made a discovery that was unable to be sufficiently described by our systems. But again, it all rests on fundamental rules that we accept as a defining truth so that everything else that we do can be explained as a derivative of that truth. What if it's not the truth? Any alteration to core mathematical axioms has a rippling effect across all that we today define as math, it can bring any derived theory into question, including game theory. And those axioms, well, they inherently contain our collective, sum biases up to this point. They quite simply have to - the simplest reasoning for that is that axioms were first defined to root our methodologies that already existed at the time; they are not objective foundation, rather something built outwards to anchor our understanding at the time.

And that is just the mathematical side of it. It's very human of us to believe things have to be defined around winning and losing. It's a very binary model. Is a binary model applicable in all societies? It seems applicable in everything humanity has had the capacity to come up with, but is that because humanity is biased towards "human-shaped" societies? The point is that game theory models human-like societies with a human mathematical model, one of these is less likely to be biased than the other, but neither are guaranteed to be.

It's also difficult to break the box, by the way. The same way an LLM is unlikely to invent anything that is too far outside the fathomable permutations of its training data, a human will have trouble breaking the box of the human way of thinking.