> "I said that if OpenAI released its result in the way proposed I would go
public with what happened. The reply was, “Why would you ruin your career?”
I replied that I am an academic, and asked why he thought going public would
ruin my career. The reply was, “If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t
have to be nice."
These are the kinds of people in charge of the reins, folks.
I have mixed feelings about cooperative board games in general. I've played a select few that blend things well, but too often it becomes an optimization problem that one or two players really fixate on and end up directing the decisions for the group as a whole, leading the others to check out.
The games I've found to get past this and remain fun for everyone retain some element of hidden knowledge between players, such as Deadwood [1] where players are cooperative in groups up until a final duel or Hanabi [2] where everyone but you knows your cards and players take turns giving strategic bits of info to get everyone's cards down in the right order.
I do get a bit tired of Hanabi when the "fixated" players all agree on a bunch of conventions ahead of time (e.g., if you don't know what to do or you are forced to play, always play your leftmost card, and put your most recently drawn cards on the right side of your hand).
I much prefer the element of chaos and trying to give people clues based on what you think they, based on their individual personality, would do.
Optimizing a game is fun in its own right (my colleague even published a paper with the best known Hanabi strategy: https://doi.org/10.4169/math.mag.88.5.323), but then trying to use that strategy to play the game is immensely dull.
Some of that is just human condition. Some want to lead, some want to be led.
Ages ago I worked in qualitative market research. Which is like a game where the researcher is trying to find the truth. But in focus groups, for all kinds of reasons, some participants dominate the conversation. Answering first and forming a box for other respondents to fit in. And next thing you know the whole group loves blue pants. Even when they don't, because particatjng is not just voicing your opinion but also engaging with dominant-Steve who's trying to be the center of attention and curry favour with the researcher (and Steve ruins the whole FG)
> Some of that is just human condition. Some want to lead, some want to be led.
Many do not want to be led, dont insist on leading others and find the above guy trying to make decisions for everybody killing their enjoyment of the game.
The kind of game OP described does not lead to happy players enjoying to being led. It leads either to them checking out or to a conflict between players. It is not "human condition" just a bad design.
Yes. The IDI is preferred. Time and location constraints are why FG exist. And a robot researcher is almost preferred. Humans are social creatures, so part of the challenge of research is to get the respondant to be open/Frank.
You might enjoy Spirit Island, a cooperative game designed explicitly to make that "quarterbacking" strategy infeasible and encourage more interesting player interaction. Players have asymmetrical abilities and power progression, so it's hard to micromanage everyone, and everyone has enough choices to make that even the "I think we can win this turn if..." conversation generally depends on each person making their own reasonable choices rather than one person planning out the whole turn.
> they can go around buying up assets until they own everything
The real estate transactions described in the article are purely income-generating rather than related to the mission of the church (e.g. for church buildings, temples); as such, any income from them is subject to income tax already under UBIT laws [1]. Same goes for local/state property taxes.
Most people I've talked to actually use the "friends feed" in the menu that shows literally only what your friends have posted and nothing else; that could be my friend bias though
Sounds like a great way to strongly incentivize a new form of fraud--fraud-reporting fraud! Imagine how much fraudsters could gain by reporting thousands or tens of thousands of "fraud" calls that they themselves both originate and report from existing SIM farm infrastructure. Any deployment weakness or hole in blocking malicious traffic in the global telecommunications network all of the sudden becomes akin to a weak smart contract that is ripe for exploitation on the order of millions of dollars of fines until it is patched, all due to this depositing requirement.
You're assuming the telecom operator of the SIM farm doesn't know his customers. That'll change very quickly after the first few have to cover the fines themselves.
After that that scam would result in the scammer paying the (e.g.) $10 upfront, the (up to; e.g.) 10% for every hop between networks and likely and transaction, processing and legal fees for the civil case (if he's not cooperating).
And he'll likely end up with criminal charges on top of that.
Also it's not like the scammer gets sued by some powerless private citizen authorities are likely to ignore. His opponent will be a telecom provider in his own jurisdiction.
> The most memorable creative responses to The Odyssey – such as Euripides’ Helen, Virgil’s Aeneid, Milton’s Paradise Lost, Joyce’s Ulysses, Walcott’s Omeros, Atwood’s Penelopiad, Madeline Miller’s Circe or Lisa Peterson’s play set in a modern migrant camp –
Hey, she forgot to include O Brother, Where Art Thou!
> That's exciting that emergent behavior is coining new idioms that may be applicable to some situation
I dunno, it feels pretty similar to an elementary student blindly swapping words with a thesaurus to increase the sophistication of their writing (which I readily admit I was guilty of doing once). It sounds more intelligent but lacks substance.
FWIW as a humanities nerd, “tractable beachhead” packs a lot of nuanced meaning into two words. It’s probably not the right vocabulary choice for most audiences, but it isn’t empty or arbitrary.
Tractable = you can make it work, but it’s not going to take care of itself, you have to get your hands around it
Beachhead = you’re on a mission, you’re trying to probe to find the right way in to get started to eventually accomplish the whole thing, but first you have to find a little spot to get situated and then expand from there.
It does, but in the same way that LLMs take two paragraphs to make a one-sentence point: by being weirdly specific and also redundant. LLMs don’t have a sense of whimsy in the face of RLHF, so if it’s proposing a solution, the solution is tractable. All implementation plans start with a beachhead.
“A good starting point” is almost certainly all it needed to convey and what it should have written.
This kind of nuance is very suited to a mother tongue and I would probably like it in French, but as a non-native speaker who uses english mainly for professional or hobby stuff, claude-speak is becoming a bit off-putting.
My only exposure to english literature comes from the Brontë sisters at this moment in time.
This was literally an extended sales pitch to get people to buy/invest in real estate in Kyiv. Of course they're going to portray it as vibrant and rich.
These are the kinds of people in charge of the reins, folks.
reply