Thanks, this is very helpful feedback. Request for more such notes from readers.
A lot of the motivation for writing it was, in fact, to figure out what my own opinions actually were.
I do think a lot of this has implications outside game design, and I was sad that I couldn’t efficiently write this in a way that didn’t bog it down in a lot of game-design-specific detail, which means it will be hard for those not into the detail to extract the implications unless I come back to them in another form.
Paying in some reasonable investment is an improvement, and in a world with different ‘right’ investments would be a bigger one, but tying up the money that long in a sufficiently safe investment is still pretty expensive.
It would be interesting if one could bet, say, shares of SPY US plus associated dividends, so you were leaking a lot less alpha. Of course, that changes the odds on long bets quite a bit if they are correlated with SPY US, which most of them will be.
I agree strongly that, as a problem for humans, assuming that the consequentialist model has all our real values is not a safe assumption.
I would go further, and say that this assumption is almost always going to be importantly wrong and result in loss of important values. Nor do I think this is a hypothetical failure mode, at all; I believe it is common in our circles.
It remains to be seen whether they’re going to go full blast on making lots of changes, and whether the changes they do make will be good going forward—while these changes were net positive by most accounts, even with the giant crater they left in the color green, they do suggest a trap I’ll be describing in my next post that I worry about.
There are a lot of hints in this series, some of them quite explicit.
I have a whitepaper, but it’s not currently public.
Of course, part of designing a game is finding out that you’re wrong, and changing it to make it better.
I don’t think that’s right.
I do think that it helps with some confusion, but there is a core important set of issues here regarding what is actually going on and which systems are better and worse in which ways.
Looking forward to the follow-up; you may wish to post it on the original blog post since it’s going deep into such matters.
I totally get that there’s another perspective but have not heard a strong case for it.
An outright “You’re dumb” is a mistake, period, unless you actually meant to say that the person is in fact dumb. This rounding is a pure bad, and there’s no need of it. Adding ‘being’ or ‘playing’ or ‘doing something’ before the dumb is necessary.
Part of a good combative-type culture is that you mean what you say and say what you mean, so the rounding off here is a serious problem even before the (important) feelings/status issue.
Curious for your take on this question (I have my own answers but I want to not anchor you): Why do we frequently see sports teams in (e.g. basketball or football) effectively concede games by taking approaches with 0% win rate, when they have strategies that have non-zero (but very low) win rates?
There is a special case where these thoughts are actually useful. If you are playing at less than full capacity, you should consider avoiding complex positions and long chains of reasoning, and seek variance slash try to get lucky in various ways. Simplify the game, or force the decisions onto the opponent. If you’re on the clock, don’t count on being able to operate quickly later on.
The other special case is, regardless of why, noting you are not focused can be a good motivation to actually focus, whereas you won’t fix it if you don’t realize you have a problem.
And of course between rounds is often a great time to hydrate, grab a bite, get a few minutes of rest or what not, and it can very important to your success in the tournament to become aware of your needs going forward. Then, after the tournament, you do what Richard says and prevent it from happening again.
I haven’t played. I think it is a cool idea and I have a lot of faith in Richard, so I am optimistic. I should try it at some point, hard to say more without giving it a shot.