TL;DR: Recently I wrote a post that got much less karma than I expected. My best guess is that the main reason is that I translated it from Russian to English via ChatGPT, and this easily recognizable LLM-style convinced readers from the first lines that “There aren’t any original thoughts;...
If there's something in your life that isn't quite good enough and you'd like to change it, chances are you can't just swap one thing for another directly. There are many reasons for that, but this post won’t focus on the various obstacles or how to overcome them. Instead, we'll...
When we talk about rationality as systematized winning, we often discuss how to turn a loss into a victory or how to create a victory from scratch. However, an equally important question is how to avoid turning an apparent victory into a loss. On the Importance of Developing an Advantage...
TL;DR: Recently I wrote a post that got much less karma than I expected. My best guess is that the main reason is that I translated it from Russian to English via ChatGPT, and this easily recognizable LLM-style convinced readers from the first lines that “There aren’t any original thoughts; it is a standard, machine-generated fluff piece”. Is it correct, or does the post itself contain any major issues?
More detailed thoughts:
If there's something in your life that isn't quite good enough and you'd like to change it, chances are you can't just swap one thing for another directly. There are many reasons for that, but this post won’t focus on the various obstacles or how to overcome them. Instead, we'll try to describe the structure of such transitions using a “soft” mathematical model.
The foundation for this post is Section 5 of Vladimir Arnold’s booklet “Hard and Soft Mathematical Models.” I’ll not only summarize the key conclusions from that section but also explain which assumptions they rely on and how exactly the conclusions follow.
This post doesn’t contain any heavy math—it focuses mainly on... (read 2857 more words →)
When we talk about rationality as systematized winning, we often discuss how to turn a loss into a victory or how to create a victory from scratch. However, an equally important question is how to avoid turning an apparent victory into a loss.
Recently, I watched a video on how adults can learn to play chess. It covered elements such as tactics, strategy, and game thinking. One particular idea about game thinking caught my attention.
The core idea of this approach is as follows: Instead of starting at the lowest difficulty level, we set the chess engine to its strongest setting from the very beginning. To compensate for... (read 1478 more words →)
I think that "blatant lies" case applied for newcomer real estate developers (RED); but well known RED can use their reputation and common knowledge about this reputation as part of simulacrum-3.
If there is common knowledge about many previous successes of this particular RED, then the bank can believe that everyone else will hunt this stag. Thus, the bank will sign the papers.
But newcomer RED can't afford just to pretend to pretend that everyone else is hunting the stag. The bank will not believe that RED's intention to build the skyscraper will be sufficient to convince other parties to hunt the stag. The RED must pretend that other parties already signed the papers to convince the bank to hunt the stag.
So, without good reputation, you must use blatant lies (S2) to convince people to hunt the stag. But having such reputation (and common knowledge about it) you can just pretend to pretend that you stag is the best choice (S3) - people will gladly join your hunting.
My best guess is very similar to you fourth scenario.
I think, that one of the main Putin's goal (maybe his very terminal goal, but I'm not sure) is to solve the Ukrainian problem, and then quit the game as a triumphant (after president's election at 2024; but he has option to continue work on it until 2030, if he choose so and nothing changes significantly). Putin's time is relatively short - he is 69 years old, and there are some rumors (not very reliable, thought) that he is somehow sick. So achieving his main goal in two years is very preferably to him, but there are still another six president's years, if... (read more)