> During swim training, if our coach wants to setup a relay race, he’ll deliberately mix swim ability (even changing teams between rounds) so that there’s a competitive element. Not much of a race if lane 1 is in the same team and beats everyone by 30 seconds!

I think this is actually a good example of setting up the game appropriately (in this case the teams as well as the rules) and then playing to win within those constraints. The end result is more fun and better training than you would get by departing from the 'playing to win' philosophy by, for example, having a tacit agreement that the faster swimmers will take it easy so as not to embarrass the others.

(I'm of course not suggesting this was the Chappells' direct motive, or even that this incident realistically could have uncovered hidden depths in the game of cricket. But as a general philosophy I think 'playing to win' has some merit, even from a perspective that ultimately cares about the health of the game and not just about winning as a terminal goal.)

If you claim you don't have time, or it's not your job to educate us... that is an obvious copout, as you have already written hundreds of words and were the one to introduce this topic.

One night, while walking, I was stopped by police because I roughly matched the description of someone who had burgled a house nearby. They didn't tell me this straight away; they just asked who I was, where I lived, and what I was doing. I didn't have ID on me, but I answered their questions honestly. They went to their car for a bit (presumably checking that my name matched my address and/or that I didn't have a record), then came back, explained the situation, and let me go as they had no strong reason to suspect me. The whole interaction was pretty relaxed and cordial, and they didn't contact me again.

Things definitely wouldn't have gone better for me had I made a point of refusing to engage beyond the legally required minimum, and it's easy to imagine how they could have gone significantly worse.

Very powerful people are making decisions for the rest of us! If you have a plan to change that, I'm listening; in the meantime, I much prefer when they have some desire to do good, and a willingness to discuss and think about what that entails, than when they quietly act amorally (or, worse and not exactly uncommon, unashamedly act maliciously).

The 'narrative' is focused on the corruption because government corruption is a big deal! Even when it's not truly surprising, and even when you have no sympathy for the (immediate) losers, it should be somewhat shocking, or else what are we even doing here.

You talk about Anthropic giving the government 'enough rope' and getting 'owned', which seems like a tacit acknowledgement that the government does not give a shit about whatever the surface-level justification for this ban is. And you even explicitly acknowledge "the possiblility of insider plays by the current administration w/ OpenAI or SpaceX". What level of cynicism/tribalism are you on, that you don't see this as obviously the main story here?

If the latter, you would ignore the 'cheated' answers and judge them on everything else; you wouldn't mark the 'cheated' answers as incorrect.

They said "writing and thinking without LLMs", not "not thinking about LLMs". I think they're talking about setting aside time for fairly focused thought/work.

I'm not just trying to be snarky, but I have no idea how to read this without taking the implication that humans are advanced, yet dumb, search algorithms.