Do you have a link to the study validating that the LLM responses actually match the responses given by humans in that category?

Note one weakness of this technique. An LLM is going to provide what the average generic written account would be. But messages are intended for a specific audience, sometimes a specific person, and that audience is never"generic median internet writer." Beware WIERDness. And note that visual/audio cues are 50-90% of communication, and 0% of LLM experience.

How does buying "none of the above" work as you add more entries? If someone buys NOTA today, and the winning entry is #13, does everyone who bought NOTA before it was posted also win?

Agree that closer to reality would be one advisor, who has a secret goal, and player A just has to muddle through against an equal skill bot with deciding how much advice to take. And playing like 10 games in a row, so the EV of 5 wins can be accurately evaluated against.

Plausible goals to decide randomly between:

1. Player wins
2. Player loses
3. Game is a draw
4. Player loses thier Queen (ie opponent still has thier queen after all immediate trades and forcing moves are completed)
5. Player loses on time
6. Player wins, delivering checkmate with a bishop or knight move
7. Maximum number of promotions (for both sides combined)
8. Player wins after having a board with only pawns Etc...

Arguing against A doesn't support Not A, but arguing against Not Not A is arguing against A (while still not arguing in favor of Not A) - albeit less strongly than arguing against A directly. No back translation is needed, because arguments are made up of actual facts and logic chains. We abstract it to "not A" but even in pure Mathematics, there is some "thing" that is actually being argued (eg, my grass example).

Arguing at a meta level can be thought of as putting the object level debate on hold and starting a new debate about the rules that do/should govern the object level domain.

Alice: grass is green -> grass isn't not green Bob: the grass is teal -> the grass is provably teal Alice: your spectrometer is miscalibrated -> your spectrometer isn't not miscalibrated.

...

I'm having trouble with the statement {...and has some argument against C'}. The point of the double negative translation is that any argument against not not A is necessarily an argument against A (even though some arguments against A would not apply to not not A). And the same applies to the other translation - Alice is steelmanning Bob's argument, so there shouldn't be any drift of topic.

Additionally and separately, the law "X takes effect at time t" will be opposed by the interests that oppose X, regardless of the value of t.

Consider a scale that runs from "authentic real life" to "Lotus eater box" At any point along that scale, you can experience euphoria. At the Lotus Eater end, it is automatic. At the real life end, it is incidental. "Games" fall towards the Lotus Eater end of the spectrum, not as far as slot machines, but further from real life than Exercise or Eating Chocolate. Modern game design is about exploiting what is known about what brains like, to guide the players through the (mental) paths necessary to generate happy chems. They call it "being Fun" but that's just thier medium level Map.

Some respected designers (including Mark Rosewater) would say that being compatible with real life is disqualifying for a thing to be a "Game." You can apply game design principles to real life stuff (lessons/repetitive tasks/etc.) to make it more Fun. One thing that makes Games a particularly good source of Fun, however, is the safety provided by being independent of real life. With no "real" consequence to losing, brains are more relaxed. A similar effect is what makes horror movies Fun - the viewers brain is put through stimulus to generate chemicals, without overwhelming the system the way a real danger can.

90% of games are designed to be fun. Meaning the point is to stimulate your brain to produce feel-good chemicals. No greater meaning, or secret goal. To do this, they have goals, rules, and other features, but the core loop is very simple:

1. I want to get a dopamine hit, therefore
2. I open up a game, and
3. The game provides a structure that I follow, subordinating my "real life" to the artificial goals and laws of the game
4. Profit!

I don't think the assumption of equal transaction costs holds. If I want to fill in some potholes on my street, I can go door to door and ask for donations - which costs me time but has minimal and well understood costs to the other contributors. If I have to add "explain this new thing" and "keep track of escrow funds" and "cycling back and telling everyone how the project funding is going, and making them re-decide if/how much to contribute" that is a whole bunch of extra costs.

Also, of the public good is not quantum (eg, I could fix anywhere from 1-10 of the potholes, amd do it well or slapdash) then the producer can make a decision about quality after seeing the final funding total, rather than having to specify everything in advance. For example, your website needs, say, 40 hours of work to be a minimally viable product, but could continue to benefit from work up to 400 hours. How many hours is the (suspiciously specific) $629 buying?