Because then you're just applying a subjective set of rules and only protecting speech you agree with. The purpose of free speech is to ensure a world where no entity (such as the government) can dictate what is acceptable and unacceptable speech based on the sole views whatever party happens to be in control. I.e. do you want a trump administration to modify free speech to be "mostly free speech, except for extremists"? Do you think your view of extremists closely aligns with their view?
"If your executive team is mostly white guys I'm staying away too"
Um, what? Why does the race or ethnicity of the exec team have anything to do with anything? Insert any race into that sentence. Completely ridiculous. This guy is a nutball, and so is the company culture.
"If your executive team is mostly white guys [which indicates that you're mining from the same labor pool as everyone else, and shows you're not willing to do basic legwork,] I'm staying away too."
Sure, but when that moment happens over 20 years after you've started your "way of doing things", and you've amassed a giant fortune in the process, your eye-opening moment is not, "Well, I guess I was lucky all those years." Your eye-opening moment is, "Well, it's time to retire my strategy and change my methodology, if I can."
Nothing lasts forever. Conditions change in every arena of competition, not just the market. If a professional basketball player is incredibly successful until their bodies literally begin to degrade, do we raise philosophical questions about the inherent attribution of their skill?
People don't seem to respond well to the quant fund examples, so how about this - how has Warren Buffett consistently beat the market through Berkshire Hathaway? If he ceased beating the market this year, would it because he has been lucky all these years? Would it be because the market conditions that supported his success have fundamentally changed? If so, why does that indicate his performance was due to chance?
> People don't seem to respond well to the quant fund examples, so how about this - how has Warren Buffett consistently beat the market through Berkshire Hathaway? If he ceased beating the market this year, would it because he has been lucky all these years? Would it be because the market conditions that supported his success have fundamentally changed? If so, why does that indicate his performance was due to chance?
People were asking this back during the dotcom boom, when he lagged the market by a huge percentage.
Gotta wonder how many Warrens were unlucky enough to have this happen early on in their careers.
As with many high performers he did it by fantastic returns at some point. I just looked up his returns in a business insider article and a quick calculation indicates that although someone who invested year one got rich, his returns over the past 30 years average to 6% (by my calculation- willing to be corrected)
I recall reading a stock book back in the 1980s that claimed that Buffet's legendary status at the time was entirely due to his purchase of Geico
This was my thought too. Poker is quite "solvable" meaning, whenever you're confronted with a decisions -- there is always a "correct" answer which does not have to depend on the other players' behavior or style. And you can find that answer by simulation, or game trees, and other methods.
It's also important to keep in mind that the best AI can still lose, and the worst AI can still win (and everything in between). Poker involves randomness, obviously whereas chess/go/etc does not.
That depends on what you mean by "correct". Sure, you could theoretically find Nash equilibrium of poker and by playing the equilibrium strategy, you can ensure you won't lose. But that does not mean this is the best strategy to use at a given table against the given opponents, who (being imperfect humans) almost certainly do not play the equilibrium strategy themselves. And, by playing a proper nonequilibrium strategy, suited to the specific players, you can win more.
The usual way these games are solved is to create an "abstract" game which is tractable, find the Nash equilibrium, and map state in the real game back to the "abstract" game. In the limit, the solutions for a well designed "abstract" game will converge to that of the real game.
You are explaining how current algorithms try to find the (approximate) Nash equilibrium (and those algorithms are far from perfect; as noted in the recent DeepStack paper, current abstraction-based programs are beatable by over 3000 mbb/g, which is four times as large as simply folding each game). But my point is that even the (exact) equilibrium strategy would not necessarily be the best strategy against given non-equilibrium-playing players.
Yes, you are correct on every point. Opponent modeling and exploitation is significantly more difficult than coming up with a Nash equilibrium to an abstract game.
That's wrong. Even when you're holding a good hand, your opponent could hold a better one and reading them is a key element of poker. The opponent's hand is an important variable to decide whether you hold the winning hand or not.
If you look at the experiment in detail, you'll find that it was set up in the AI's favor.
>When a hand was all-in before the river no more cards were dealt and each player received his equity in chips.
While all that is less important when you can avoid all-in situations, the main statement -that the other player's behavior is irrelevant- is still wrong.
As expected, the AI is good at making technically correct decisions and "draining money" from a table by playing hands with sufficient data almost perfectly.
However, in decisive all-in situations with little information available, it supposedly wouldn't do so well, regardless of all the learning, but that's what it often comes down to.
>Nash Equilibrium is a strategy which ensures that the player who is using it will, at the very least, not fare worse than a player using any other strategy.
How do you make this work for situations that can cost you the game in one hand, with little information available? Without observing the opponent's behavior you can't, and for the AI that means it can be forced into making bad calls by playing aggressively, unless the game mode allows for avoiding such decisions, which was the case in this test.
People don't want to leave their bubbles, for the fear of uncovering uncomfortable truths. For example, I have friends who flat out refused to read any of the WikiLeaks e-mails that could potentially reveal something bad about Hillary, her campaign, the DNC, or any entity on the left.
That's just how some (probably a lot of) people are. When some people encounter something that challenges your pre-existing beliefs, it's easier to just ignore it and stay in your bubble of comfort.
And that mindset, IMO, is not an easy thing to fix.
I'm a liberal who voted for Hillary Clinton, despite basically loathing everything the Clintons stand for, and I read all the wikileaks emails.
That said, the torrent of pure bullshit based on those emails that was floating around on both sides was unbelievable. Either she was as pure as the driven snow or a she-demon, with nothing in between.
After a certain point, it wasn't even worth the effort to argue about it and I just started unfollowing half of my friends and family.
The mail dump was basically a free for all corpus to plug any preconceived narrative up to hamfistedly made up conspiracy you could grep out of this.
The rest is more of the normal mode of operation of any human organization:
"Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Godfrey_Saxe
>> People don't want to leave their bubbles, for the fear of uncovering uncomfortable truths
That may be the case. But in some cases, people dont want to leave their bubble because eating skittles in someone elses' bubble can mean "looking suspicious" and getting killed for it. That is why I only hang out with my own group and those who understand me, it is too risky out there. And Travon was not the only case, there are hundreds of cases like it which dont get publicized.
People don't even seem to care if their news turns out to be fake so long as it confirms their beliefs - the fact that it was believable means there must be some underlying truth to it in their eyes.
> For example, I have friends who flat out refused to read any of the WikiLeaks e-mails that could potentially reveal something bad about Hillary, her campaign, the DNC, or any entity on the left.
That's because of things like the "spirit dinner" bullshit or an email chain discussing drug pricing being reduced to "HILLARY FOUGHT LOWER DRUG PRICES".
When every single email is apparently awful evil shit then it's hard to differentiate things that are actually bad.
Show me some emails that you actually believe should convince someone not to vote for Clinton. Especially over Trump. Keeping in mind that the screwing around in the Primary isn't enough, and that I'm willing to accept a candidate I don't particularly like all that much.
You might end up cooking a lot of people, as well as disabling all of the surrounding infrastructure, sending the people who live there back to the stone age as well.
"We cleared out all those ISIS bad guys for you. Well, their cellphones. You probably didn't hear about it because we also cooked your cellphones and radios, too."
Maybe we should figure out why they fight and not bomb the crap out of them or send the back to the stone age (BTW, people living in the 'stone age' knowing there is something better will fight for that)
You think figuring out why they fight matters? I have not seen any evidence that getting involved in the Middle East has ever been a long term win for both sides. Best thing the West can do is leave it alone (that includes not selling arms to various involved parties, which is currently happening in many countries over there)
To play devil's advocate, we could use the same line of thinking to incriminate the Clinton's. In fact, a lot of people have done so. And they get labeled conspiracy theorists or idiots for not having "facts" to back up their claims.
I'm not bringing this point up to start a side tangent argument, but just pointing out that in this election cycle, a lot of people held pre-existing beliefs and would justify them in any way they could (i.e. cognitive dissonance).
You only know that in hindsight. The FBI didn't know if anything was there before they had a chance to investigate, and they also didn't know how soon the investigation could be completed. So, yes, they did risk a possible scenario of coverup accusations if they decided to not notify congress the moment they started investigating again.
The right certainly would've complained about a coverup if Comey hadn't said anything about the additional emails before the election. It was still a gross breach in protocol and wholly inappropriate.
As a rule the FBI simply does not announce they're investigating someone because it can damage the investigation, and because it could unfairly tarnish someone who has done nothing wrong.
The encroachment of political calculus into the Justice Department is not a good thing. Let Democrats or Republicans howl about whatever, the DoJ and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies need to do their job the right way, regardless of partisan complaining.
What evidence exists to suggest that this was a deliberate attempt by Russia to influence the results of the US election in a way that would benefit them?
I'm not asking only how Trump would benefit Russia, but what evidence exists to suggest that this entire ordeal was some elaborate scheme concocted by the Russian government?
EDIT: If this claim was such a stark truth, surely there must exist a smoking gun somewhere? So, where is the evidence?
I don't know if you've ever heard of the NSA before, but they deal in secrets. They don't publish their methods and they don't reveal sources. Remember that whole Edward Snowden thing?
> while Clinton would have maintained the status quo.
Much more likely to increase tensions between US and Russia (perhaps even to dangerous levels). Not saying Russia wasn't "looking for it", but Hillary's anti-Russia rhetoric to help her own campaign wasn't helping.
It was clearly intended to weaken Clinton's public standing whether or not she was elected; it's also arguable that it wasn't really designed to be hard to trace, so it may well have been designed to do the same thing to Trump.
