5 ms·
Is there an exposition of the ideas and results of conversational game theory in the format and authorial style of an academic paper? Even if there is no intent
by QuadmasterXLII 2y ago
Is there an exposition of the ideas and results of conversational game theory in the format and authorial style of an academic paper? Even if there is no intention to submit it to e.g. neurips, creating and prominently linking to such a pdf could help not only to refine the ideas but to communicate to outsiders. The linked website takes a while to get to the point and filled up my crank-o-meter before I got answers to basic questions like “what loss are the agents trained on” or “what do you think the equilibrium of this game is and why do you think that.” The field has settled on the (paper, github, blog post) link triplet for good reason.
- azath92 2y agoI would also love some more traditional explanation of the ideas. My impression is the author is operating outside "the field", in a traditional academic sense, whether you are referring to AI/ML or game theory research. I had a bit of a search for citations or other mentions of their 9x3 nerrative logic or Conversational Game theory and only found their own sites (in a few different places https://bigmotherdao.com/f-a-q/ https://bigmotherdao.com/f-a-q/, parley.aikiwiki.com) or an article under some contention by the author themselves on RationalWiki https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rome_Viharo https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rome_Viharo. The mentioned professor James H. Fallon doesn't appear to have clear links to project outside of what is stated in the article. My crank-o-meter (great phrase) overflowed at this point, but I am also genuinely interested in some kind of more clarity around the ideas, or where they came from in an academic legacy sense, as they felt like they might have some interesting bones. Maybe someone with stronger google foo can find more, or confirm absence?
- hoofish 2y agothx for feedback. project is in stealth mode. always a good idea to be skeptical.
- hoofish 2y agoYes, this has been an independent project for many years, but has had many endorsements from computer science to cognitive science. This project has had no problems attracting attention and interest from many qualified people, and if you want to see how strong the bones are, just ask for a demo, or watch the demo on the site. It's probably not best to just go off of your first reaction, which seems a little tense and aggravated.
- waveBidder 2y agoI'm surprised something where the crankmeter goes off so strongly made it to the front page.
- hoofish 2y agoi think natural skepticism is a good idea. This is an independent project outside of academia, some think that projects outside of academia are crank projects by default, comes with the territory. Project should be judged on its own merits. This is just a stealth site.
- waveBidder 2y agoI agree, but this is obvious crankery. > Perfect conversations are made possible through Conversational Game Theory. this is not the sort of thing someone who has thought critically about their own work says.
- hoofish 2y agoYou have a very narrow way of conducting a review :)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- hoofish 2y agoUmmm, clearly it is! Why does something have to be cranky just because you don't understand it? Maybe that's on you, dude.
- mistermann 2y agoRelevant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
- hoofish 2y agoHi, thanks for feedback. Project is in stealth mode at the moment, I was not expecting the response.
- refulgentis 2y agoYes, you were expecting a response. I checked who submitted it: it is you!
- hoofish 2y agoWow, you're clever. Like I said, I was not expecting such a response,duh, of course I was the poster. over 5k visits to the site. I think the layer of suspicion you put on everything is kinda ridiculous.