6 ms·

Amusing “We have to find those reasons why young sportsmen are taking doping, why they agree to be doped,”. I take peds for programming, Modafinil. it's a cold

Amusing “We have to find those reasons why young sportsmen are taking doping, why they agree to be doped,”. I take peds for programming, Modafinil. it's a cold hard world, results are rewarded.

ggreer 10y ago
Like most jobs, programming is positive sum. If you take modafinil or caffeine or carphedon, you'll write more software of higher quality (hopefully). You won't reduce the amount or quality of software written by others. And the drugs you take don't have long-term disadvantages. For example, modafinil won't give you early onset Alzheimer's. Contrast that to doping in sport. Sport is zero-sum. For me to win, you must lose. And many performance-enhancing drugs can cause long-term health issues. Steroids can enlarge the heart and damage its valves. EPO can thicken the blood enough to cause embolism. If all athletes are doping, none of them benefit. They simply suffer more and die sooner. Doping regulations help solve this coordination problem among athletes.
- trevyn 10y ago
  If all athletes are doping, none of them benefit. I would disagree; the more superhuman the feats, the more people are likely to watch. See, e.g., Cristiano Ronaldo.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    What is "superhuman" if not a relative benchmark against our expectations of what humans can accomplish unaided? We watch the Olympics knowing full well a machine could trivially outdo the best athlete at virtually every event.
    - smallnamespace 10y ago
      Really? I'd love to see a team of robots win at, say, soccer or basketball, but I'd bet that is still decades away. Not to mention figure skating, or gymnastics.
      - wolf550e 10y ago
        Come on, you know he meant the stuff that measures "Faster, Higher, Stronger" like running and jumping and throwing. The team sports and sports in which you get points for aesthetics are harder for robots, but I think they can do bobsleigh if not soccer.
        smallnamespace 10y ago
        And exactly which sports are the 'faster, higher, stronger' ones? Let me list some individual, no artistic points sports where I think building a robot that can beat a top human would be highly challenging: - Pole vault - Hurdles - Wrestling - Cycling - build a robot than can actually balance on bike and ride it properly - Tennis - Surfing Not to mention the biggest challenge, which is that every single one of these sports would require a special robot, while humans are true generalists. We are literally decades away from being able to build generalist robots that can outpace humans in the physical world over a range of tasks. Kinematics, balance, and locomotion are all hard problems in robotics, and it doesn't help for us to trivialize them.
        tptacek 10y ago
        You're right, but you're making my argument for me. Nobody is interested in seeing a motorcycle beat a bicyclist, or a horse outrun an Olympic sprinter; they're interested in seeing what a human being can do, unaided, pushed to the limits of what a human can do. We already know that we can outperform an unassisted human using technology.
  - Joakal 10y ago
    Programming is an ongoing feat. You wouldn't take a drug to finish off a project and risk obvious health issues. Why? You're like an artist, as you do more work in future, the better. Olympics is an one-off feat. You may take a drug to finish first despite risking obvious health issues. Why? You could receive money and fame for a lifetime as reward for one-off events.
- nradov 10y ago
  We don't know yet whether modafinil and other nootropics have long-term disadvantages. The research just hasn't been done yet to say what effect they will have after 30+ years of use. As a thought experiment ask yourself this: if there are no disadvantages then why hasn't the human brain evolved to operate that way normally without medication? I suspect there are some trade-offs, even if they aren't readily apparent.
  - douche 10y ago
    For how many generations has increased intelligence really been a positive factor, compared to more prosaic survival traits? Outside of the Ashkenazi Jewish population, anyway, and that subgroup has the highest average iq in the world.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    > As a thought experiment ask yourself this: if there are no disadvantages then why hasn't the human brain evolved to operate that way normally without medication? Where's the evolutionary pressure?
  - chillacy 10y ago
    Evolution doesn't work that way, it doesn't reach global maxima. For instance our eyes are inferior to those in octopuses in many ways, but they're good enough for us so we will probably never evolve better eyes (for a number of reasons, including lack of selective pressure and our eyes being on a separate evolutionary pathway that includes an optic nerve being in front of the macula). Likewise with the brain.
    - grandinj 10y ago
      Octopus eyes don't have to cope with ultra violet light, hence they can be more optimal in other ways
  - akiselev 10y ago
    > As a thought experiment ask yourself this: if there are no disadvantages then why hasn't the human brain evolved to operate that way normally without medication? Biochemistry has nearly infinite degrees of freedom that have to be encoded by a small genetic code, evolution is far more likely to find a local maximum instead of a global one, sexual reproduction guarantees that genes are passed on in groups where one [mal]adaptation can drown out the consequences of all the others, and many drugs are only effective because they are some kind of chemical analog that effects a receptor or reaction that developed for an entirely different purpose (for example, cannabis is a psychoactive because of the endocannabinoid system, a set of neurotransmitter receptors involved in mood, memory, and appetite that likely evolved without exposure to the ancestors of cannabis). Evolution on Earth may have had billions of years but that is nowhere near enough to explore the entire solution space for survival in a constantly changing environment.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- chillacy 10y ago
  Unfortunately stack ranking is still either explicitly or implicitly practiced at many companies, so it ends up being somewhat zero sum. For instance my company doesn't say they stack rank, but my division might get 5 promotions to divvy up, which means if someone gets one, someone else lost their opportunity to get promoted.
- smm2000 10y ago
  Performance reviews in most companies have stack ranking/curves so bonuses/career progression is as zero sum in most big companies as results in any sport.
- handsomechad 10y ago
  A couple of things: >> Like most jobs, programming is positive sum. If you take modafinil or caffeine or carphedon, you'll write more software of higher quality (hopefully). You can argue that olympic sports is positive sum then as well. If an athlete takes testosterone, he will perform at a higher level and push the boundaries of human achievement further, entertaining more fans. He won't reduce the quality of other competitors output. >> And the drugs you take don't have long-term disadvantages. For example, modafinil won't give you early onset Alzheimer's. This is absolutely unfounded, we don't have longitudinal studies on nootropic use and there are many anecdotal reports of the short and long-term side effects of drugs like modafinil. >> Contrast that to doping in sport. Sport is zero-sum. For me to win, you must lose. As I said above, if you argue this, then you can argue the same thing for software. For me to take adderall and outperform another employee (both intracompany and at other companies) makes the other employee lose because he was not willing to undergo the same health risks. If I become a top performer with the aide of drugs and beat my coworker for a promotion, did he not lose as a result of my willingness to sacrifice my health? What about if my whole team does drugs and ships a better product with faster deadlines, causing another firm to lose the deal and go out of business?
Fezzik 10y ago
I have always thought the anti-doping rage a bit odd - without writing an essay, Sports Illustrtated had a great op-ed piece around 2008 re what would you rather watch: steroid baseball or non-steroid baseball. The clear implication being that the value (entertainment/spectecle/super-human feats are excentuated by PEDs). It is, ultimately, another form of "nutrition".
- douche 10y ago
  Baseball has gotten very boring since the crusade to clean it up. I miss the days when homerun records were in jeopardy every season.
- kurthr 10y ago
  If by "nutrition" you mean that it can cause a variety of disorders and premature death... It's hard to claim that all athletes who want to fairly compete should be also forced to use them, unless we really want to encourage death sports. Note also, that the race to find new steroids that are less detectable has not necessarily corresponded to finding those that are more safe and effective.

Amusing “We have to find those reasons why young sportsmen are taking doping, why they agree to be doped,”. I take peds for programming, Modafinil. it's a cold hard world, results are rewarded.

ggreer 10y ago

Like most jobs, programming is positive sum. If you take modafinil or caffeine or carphedon, you'll write more software of higher quality (hopefully). You won't reduce the amount or quality of software written by others. And the drugs you take don't have long-term disadvantages. For example, modafinil won't give you early onset Alzheimer's. Contrast that to doping in sport. Sport is zero-sum. For me to win, you must lose. And many performance-enhancing drugs can cause long-term health issues. Steroids can enlarge the heart and damage its valves. EPO can thicken the blood enough to cause embolism. If all athletes are doping, none of them benefit. They simply suffer more and die sooner. Doping regulations help solve this coordination problem among athletes.

trevyn 10y ago
If all athletes are doping, none of them benefit. I would disagree; the more superhuman the feats, the more people are likely to watch. See, e.g., Cristiano Ronaldo.
- tptacek 10y ago
  What is "superhuman" if not a relative benchmark against our expectations of what humans can accomplish unaided? We watch the Olympics knowing full well a machine could trivially outdo the best athlete at virtually every event.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    Really? I'd love to see a team of robots win at, say, soccer or basketball, but I'd bet that is still decades away. Not to mention figure skating, or gymnastics.
    - wolf550e 10y ago
      Come on, you know he meant the stuff that measures "Faster, Higher, Stronger" like running and jumping and throwing. The team sports and sports in which you get points for aesthetics are harder for robots, but I think they can do bobsleigh if not soccer.
      - smallnamespace 10y ago
        And exactly which sports are the 'faster, higher, stronger' ones? Let me list some individual, no artistic points sports where I think building a robot that can beat a top human would be highly challenging: - Pole vault - Hurdles - Wrestling - Cycling - build a robot than can actually balance on bike and ride it properly - Tennis - Surfing Not to mention the biggest challenge, which is that every single one of these sports would require a special robot, while humans are true generalists. We are literally decades away from being able to build generalist robots that can outpace humans in the physical world over a range of tasks. Kinematics, balance, and locomotion are all hard problems in robotics, and it doesn't help for us to trivialize them.
        tptacek 10y ago
        You're right, but you're making my argument for me. Nobody is interested in seeing a motorcycle beat a bicyclist, or a horse outrun an Olympic sprinter; they're interested in seeing what a human being can do, unaided, pushed to the limits of what a human can do. We already know that we can outperform an unassisted human using technology.
- Joakal 10y ago
  Programming is an ongoing feat. You wouldn't take a drug to finish off a project and risk obvious health issues. Why? You're like an artist, as you do more work in future, the better. Olympics is an one-off feat. You may take a drug to finish first despite risking obvious health issues. Why? You could receive money and fame for a lifetime as reward for one-off events.
nradov 10y ago
We don't know yet whether modafinil and other nootropics have long-term disadvantages. The research just hasn't been done yet to say what effect they will have after 30+ years of use. As a thought experiment ask yourself this: if there are no disadvantages then why hasn't the human brain evolved to operate that way normally without medication? I suspect there are some trade-offs, even if they aren't readily apparent.
- douche 10y ago
  For how many generations has increased intelligence really been a positive factor, compared to more prosaic survival traits? Outside of the Ashkenazi Jewish population, anyway, and that subgroup has the highest average iq in the world.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  > As a thought experiment ask yourself this: if there are no disadvantages then why hasn't the human brain evolved to operate that way normally without medication? Where's the evolutionary pressure?
- chillacy 10y ago
  Evolution doesn't work that way, it doesn't reach global maxima. For instance our eyes are inferior to those in octopuses in many ways, but they're good enough for us so we will probably never evolve better eyes (for a number of reasons, including lack of selective pressure and our eyes being on a separate evolutionary pathway that includes an optic nerve being in front of the macula). Likewise with the brain.
  - grandinj 10y ago
    Octopus eyes don't have to cope with ultra violet light, hence they can be more optimal in other ways
- akiselev 10y ago
  > As a thought experiment ask yourself this: if there are no disadvantages then why hasn't the human brain evolved to operate that way normally without medication? Biochemistry has nearly infinite degrees of freedom that have to be encoded by a small genetic code, evolution is far more likely to find a local maximum instead of a global one, sexual reproduction guarantees that genes are passed on in groups where one [mal]adaptation can drown out the consequences of all the others, and many drugs are only effective because they are some kind of chemical analog that effects a receptor or reaction that developed for an entirely different purpose (for example, cannabis is a psychoactive because of the endocannabinoid system, a set of neurotransmitter receptors involved in mood, memory, and appetite that likely evolved without exposure to the ancestors of cannabis). Evolution on Earth may have had billions of years but that is nowhere near enough to explore the entire solution space for survival in a constantly changing environment.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
chillacy 10y ago
Unfortunately stack ranking is still either explicitly or implicitly practiced at many companies, so it ends up being somewhat zero sum. For instance my company doesn't say they stack rank, but my division might get 5 promotions to divvy up, which means if someone gets one, someone else lost their opportunity to get promoted.
smm2000 10y ago
Performance reviews in most companies have stack ranking/curves so bonuses/career progression is as zero sum in most big companies as results in any sport.
handsomechad 10y ago
A couple of things: >> Like most jobs, programming is positive sum. If you take modafinil or caffeine or carphedon, you'll write more software of higher quality (hopefully). You can argue that olympic sports is positive sum then as well. If an athlete takes testosterone, he will perform at a higher level and push the boundaries of human achievement further, entertaining more fans. He won't reduce the quality of other competitors output. >> And the drugs you take don't have long-term disadvantages. For example, modafinil won't give you early onset Alzheimer's. This is absolutely unfounded, we don't have longitudinal studies on nootropic use and there are many anecdotal reports of the short and long-term side effects of drugs like modafinil. >> Contrast that to doping in sport. Sport is zero-sum. For me to win, you must lose. As I said above, if you argue this, then you can argue the same thing for software. For me to take adderall and outperform another employee (both intracompany and at other companies) makes the other employee lose because he was not willing to undergo the same health risks. If I become a top performer with the aide of drugs and beat my coworker for a promotion, did he not lose as a result of my willingness to sacrifice my health? What about if my whole team does drugs and ships a better product with faster deadlines, causing another firm to lose the deal and go out of business?

Fezzik 10y ago

I have always thought the anti-doping rage a bit odd - without writing an essay, Sports Illustrtated had a great op-ed piece around 2008 re what would you rather watch: steroid baseball or non-steroid baseball. The clear implication being that the value (entertainment/spectecle/super-human feats are excentuated by PEDs). It is, ultimately, another form of "nutrition".

douche 10y ago
Baseball has gotten very boring since the crusade to clean it up. I miss the days when homerun records were in jeopardy every season.
kurthr 10y ago
If by "nutrition" you mean that it can cause a variety of disorders and premature death... It's hard to claim that all athletes who want to fairly compete should be also forced to use them, unless we really want to encourage death sports. Note also, that the race to find new steroids that are less detectable has not necessarily corresponded to finding those that are more safe and effective.