Practically the entire tech industry, including many of the higher ups currently camping out on the right, used to be firmly in a sort of centrist-with-social-justice-characteristics camp. Then many of those same people enthusiastically stood with Trump at his inauguration. It's completely reasonable that people have their doubts now.
It's also completely reasonable to expect that if Anthropic is the real deal and opposed to where the current agenda setters want to take things, they'll be destroyed for it.
I think "enthusiastically" looks different. They had to choose between kissing Trumps butt to make good business for 4 years or see their companies at a severe disadvantage. I'm not saying what they did was good, nor do I support it. But from a business angle it's not hard to see why they chose to do that. If you'd ask them privately off the record then I'm sure most of them would tell you that Trump is an idiot and dangerous.
Mark Zuckerberg was in a big hurry to call Trump a "badass" in the wake of the Butler hoax, and is clearly trying to appeal to the right with his cultivated jiu jitsu Chad image. It doesn't mean a damn thing what these CEOs are willing to say behind closed doors when their public decisions are to remain in lockstep with the agenda and fire anyone who asks questions about whether it's the right one.
Games like backgammon (that have betting and the doubling cube to continue), Go (which is calculated in stones), and bridge (again having points) have more natural intermediate scoring systems than chess.
In my opinion the "winner takes all" aspect of chess is similar to what makes analyzing voting systems difficult. In a non game context: Aspnes, Beigel, Furst, and Rudich had some amazing work on how all or nothing calculation really changes things: https://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/aspnes/papers/stoc91voting.pdf .
For a while I really dug in to multiple player (and teams-of-players) ELO calculations. I got into an argument with my friend about whether second place was any better than last place... specifically in poker, but applicable to multiple games (imagine chinese checkers [race to finish], or carcassonne/ticket-to-ride [semi-hidden scoring until the end]).
His POV was that "if you don't win, you lose" and my POV was "second place is better than last place". His response was: "if I play poker to get first place it's wildly different than playing for second or third place [and I may end up in last place wildly more often due to risk % or bad beats]"
I've been more used to "climbing" type performance games (ie: last place => mid-field => second place => first place) and in my gut I wanted my ELO to reflect that (top-half players are better than bottom-half players), however his very valid point was that different games have different payout matrices (eg: poker is often "top-3 payout", and first may be 10x second or third).
I think in my mind I've settled on EV-payout for multiplayer games should match the "game payout", and that maybe my gut is telling me the difference between "Casual ELO" (aka: top-half > bottom-half), and "Competitive ELO" (aka: only the winner gets paid).
Go is also winner take all. It's psychologically satisfying to have a big win, in the same way that it's psychologically satisfying to achieve a brilliant checkmate, but in any ordinary game or tournament (outside of certain gambling setups), a win by 1/2 point is the same as a win by 20+ points.
Yes and no. One could say this of any game with points where the margin of victory doesn't affect long-term outcomes (e.g. most ball games).
A win by 1/2 point or 20 points it suggests a very different relative skill between the two players. Similarly the custom of the stronger player playing white without komi suggests that the point differential matters.
I see what you're saying; this is true for any game scored win/loss. Even gridiron football if you're down by 4 points with time almost out you won't kick a field goal (worth 3 points).
The "singularity is going to be exponential" fantasy is based on assuming change simply becoming proportional to recent advances. Hence the exponential shape. Even conceding "chartism" one would need to at least propose some imaginary mechanism that goes reciprocal to pretend that sort of curve is coming.
I wonder off and on if in good fiction of "when we meet aliens and start communicating using math"- should the aliens be okay with complex residue theorems? I used to feel the same about "would they have analytic functions as a separate class" until I realized how many properties of polynomials analytic functions imitate (such as no nontrivial bounded ones).
I just updated the article. I did use Python's insufficient material detection, in addition to the ability to call for a draw (3-fold repetition, and 50 move rule). I think the "75 move rule" that doesn't require a player to call is one of the more recent rule changes.
I remember from a lot of combinatorial problems (like cutting up space with hyper-planes or calculating VC dimension) that one sees what looks like exponential growth until you have a number of items equal to the effective dimension of the system and then things start to look polynomial.
BTW: I was going through some of your lambda calculus write-ups a while ago. Really great stuff that I very much enjoyed.
Hate is a strong word, and it wasn’t categorical. He was just very wary and suspicious of it. This is one example of where Aristotle differed from his teacher quite sharply.
We must distinguish between rhetoric and sophistry. In our sloppy speech today, we have taken on the bad habit of calling vapid or dishonest or rabble-rousing political speech “rhetoric”…which it isn’t. Sophistry is a much better term, as the sophists were master bullshitters. Their aim was the same as that of our politicians and ad men: to say things that produce desired effects with total indifference to the truth of what’s being said. Language as an instrument of domination and manipulation rather than communication.
Rhetoric is not like that, strictly speaking. Rhetoric is the skillful use of language to communicate and persuade someone of the truth, at least as the speaker sees it. The presupposition is that what you wish to communicate is true, hence the emphasis on logos, ethos, and pathos. Sophists don’t care about logos. True rhetoricians do.
John Locke called rhetoric “that powerful instrument of error and deceit.” I agree.
Rhetoric is to persuasion what the greasy used car salesman is to advertising. The rhetoricians only care enough about logos to use it as a cudgel against their foes.
The folks that portray it in a positive light overlook the fact that it is ALWAYS used to persuade, by definition.
They convince themselves that this manipulation is a noble thing to do because THEIR truth is the ONE truth and that by manipulating others they serve some higher ideal. Meanwhile their opponents attempts at manipulation are still held in disdain. Humbug.
Again, you're failing to distinguish between rhetoric and sophistry. If someone is doing what you describe, it's by definition not rhetoric, no matter what someone calls it.
Rhetoric in modernity is literally defined as persuasive speech. A nodern rhetorician does not give up when they are wrong, they think of clever new ways to persuade.
Plato and Aristotle argued they were different things in antiquity, but even then some/most of their peers disagreed.
OED literally defines it as "the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques."
Figures of speech and compositional techniques do NOT bring one closer to truth, they obscure it.
That said, I appreciate that when YOU use the term it's not what you mean. I would be careful with that though. Your definition is not what it means to anyone else now outside of academia.
reply