Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

USENET would be a better laboratory if there were more labor and less oratory. -- Elizabeth Haley


devel / comp.theory / Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.

SubjectAuthor
* I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.B.H.
`* I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.B.H.
 `* I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.B.H.
  `* I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.B.H.
   `* I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.B.H.
    `* I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.B.H.
     `* I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.B.H.
      `- I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.B.H.

1
I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.

<30732749-83bb-4232-92e0-c2cefae43ed8n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32623&group=comp.theory#32623

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4205:0:b0:461:c264:de4f with SMTP id k5-20020ad44205000000b00461c264de4fmr5912340qvp.69.1652997728614;
Thu, 19 May 2022 15:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:10c4:0:b0:64d:efea:e55 with SMTP id
187-20020a2510c4000000b0064defea0e55mr6485268ybq.518.1652997728420; Thu, 19
May 2022 15:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 15:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.53.104.152; posting-account=X_pe-goAAACrVTtZeoCLt7hslVPY2-Uo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.53.104.152
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <30732749-83bb-4232-92e0-c2cefae43ed8n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.
From: xlt....@gmail.com (B.H.)
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 22:02:08 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 4853
 by: B.H. - Thu, 19 May 2022 22:02 UTC

Hi everyone,

Here is something pasted from my Facebook, which I'll delete later:

- - -

OK, I'm on it: I decided to prove a full "honesty theorem" about incomplete information game theory pretty soon...I will define: "a certain type of process," "rationality," "regular large games," and other concepts in the proof. It might involve a formula, that relates a level (??) of rationality (percentage of actors who act rationally?), to the number or percentage of rational actors, and the number of people/actors present in the game, and certain quantifiable metrics about the game (or subgame) that render it about conventional strategic action on Earth in modern times, to the extent of importance of not presenting "bad photographs" in such games, quantified in some way.
I'll start working on it tomorrow I think! The publication should be impactful because the result will be indisputable, and people will probably act differently based on the principle, i.e., more honest typically. That fact, and this publication, should push people to being more honest or more in trouble for lying, starting right now!

- - -

Here are some initial thoughts on the theorem, you can prove it yourself, I'm not getting paid for this, so I might as well just toss some stuff out there and let some other people prove it.

- A process of a person is "rational" if it is a TM that "is good at getting the person a good expected value of utility points from gems," i.e., given input in the form of details about the strategic environment, and how the person will react to any strategic environment it can perceive, via photos and first-hand experience, the TM will output a strategic move for it to make, perhaps randomized with a probability.
- A TM process for a person is rational if there is no "obvious improvement" to a better TM, perhaps via annealing or a well-known and published "stock process" that would improve the TM.
- One way to read the person's process is as having 5 components: gem-seeking routine, ally-support routine, security maintenance routine, photograph (info) seeking routine, and miscellaneous/supervisory routine--which is like int main() and calls the routines and does other behaviors. There could be good published "stock routines" for each of the five tasks, considered individually without knowing the other 4.
- Let's say: A full strategy algorithm for a strategic actor is "rational" if there is no "easily found" other strategic algorithm that would get the strategic 25% more expected utility points from gems, without a 25% percent risk of losing 25% of utility points from using the alternate strategy.
- The key actions in a strategy--the strategic moves--are: weapon deployments, movements around the grid (horizontal and vertical, I would assume), picking up and dropping weapons/photos/gems, choosing to utilize teleportation portals, and choosing to draw and/or claim to defend lines.

A key consequence: Publishing strategic principle is a valuable way to improve rationality globally. The publication of strategic, game-theoretic algorithms like the ones described is very important. Actually, that is one very strong argument for why research publication suppression is so extremely lethal and toxic to society, and why academics who tolerate it must be punished; academics are responsible for research publication, and if they don't prioritize making it happen, they are literally quietly causing lots of people's deaths. Academic journals can offer a guarantee of correctness that I cannot offer on Usenet. That is why trust failures are so disastrous..

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.

<a4e19e65-8ea9-4d66-8981-e4d298a7bd7an@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32624&group=comp.theory#32624

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:e:b0:2f3:d236:56dc with SMTP id x14-20020a05622a000e00b002f3d23656dcmr5703807qtw.187.1652998117302;
Thu, 19 May 2022 15:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:ca4d:0:b0:2ff:919:875c with SMTP id
m74-20020a0dca4d000000b002ff0919875cmr7299363ywd.14.1652998117085; Thu, 19
May 2022 15:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 15:08:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <30732749-83bb-4232-92e0-c2cefae43ed8n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.53.104.152; posting-account=X_pe-goAAACrVTtZeoCLt7hslVPY2-Uo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.53.104.152
References: <30732749-83bb-4232-92e0-c2cefae43ed8n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a4e19e65-8ea9-4d66-8981-e4d298a7bd7an@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.
From: xlt....@gmail.com (B.H.)
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 22:08:37 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: B.H. - Thu, 19 May 2022 22:08 UTC

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:02:09 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Here is something pasted from my Facebook, which I'll delete later:
>
> - - -
>
> OK, I'm on it: I decided to prove a full "honesty theorem" about incomplete information game theory pretty soon...I will define: "a certain type of process," "rationality," "regular large games," and other concepts in the proof. It might involve a formula, that relates a level (??) of rationality (percentage of actors who act rationally?), to the number or percentage of rational actors, and the number of people/actors present in the game, and certain quantifiable metrics about the game (or subgame) that render it about conventional strategic action on Earth in modern times, to the extent of importance of not presenting "bad photographs" in such games, quantified in some way.
> I'll start working on it tomorrow I think! The publication should be impactful because the result will be indisputable, and people will probably act differently based on the principle, i.e., more honest typically. That fact, and this publication, should push people to being more honest or more in trouble for lying, starting right now!
>
> - - -
>
> Here are some initial thoughts on the theorem, you can prove it yourself, I'm not getting paid for this, so I might as well just toss some stuff out there and let some other people prove it.
>
> - A process of a person is "rational" if it is a TM that "is good at getting the person a good expected value of utility points from gems," i.e., given input in the form of details about the strategic environment, and how the person will react to any strategic environment it can perceive, via photos and first-hand experience, the TM will output a strategic move for it to make, perhaps randomized with a probability.
> - A TM process for a person is rational if there is no "obvious improvement" to a better TM, perhaps via annealing or a well-known and published "stock process" that would improve the TM.
> - One way to read the person's process is as having 5 components: gem-seeking routine, ally-support routine, security maintenance routine, photograph (info) seeking routine, and miscellaneous/supervisory routine--which is like int main() and calls the routines and does other behaviors. There could be good published "stock routines" for each of the five tasks, considered individually without knowing the other 4.
> - Let's say: A full strategy algorithm for a strategic actor is "rational" if there is no "easily found" other strategic algorithm that would get the strategic 25% more expected utility points from gems, without a 25% percent risk of losing 25% of utility points from using the alternate strategy.
> - The key actions in a strategy--the strategic moves--are: weapon deployments, movements around the grid (horizontal and vertical, I would assume), picking up and dropping weapons/photos/gems, choosing to utilize teleportation portals, and choosing to draw and/or claim to defend lines.
>
>
> A key consequence: Publishing strategic principle is a valuable way to improve rationality globally. The publication of strategic, game-theoretic algorithms like the ones described is very important. Actually, that is one very strong argument for why research publication suppression is so extremely lethal and toxic to society, and why academics who tolerate it must be punished; academics are responsible for research publication, and if they don't prioritize making it happen, they are literally quietly causing lots of people's deaths. Academic journals can offer a guarantee of correctness that I cannot offer on Usenet. That is why trust failures are so disastrous.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

One thing I forgot:

- A TM process is rational if and only if we restrict attention, for 75% of other actors in the game, globally, to such actors that themselves play rational strategies. Thus, the concept of rationality evolves and can be political; the published strategic literature can influence what is considered to be "rational," since sometimes, what is rational changes if you as a strategic actor learn new things about rationality and strategy improvements, and are sure that many other human beings in the "game" are learning these lessons and changing the "public notion" of what rationality is, too.

In a way, I once again cement my position as "the world's most powerful person," because as the only person in the world who will write about this subject on the internet (or in the media), I am 100% in control of the definition and nature of rationality. As long as this situation continues, I and I alone am the sole determiner of what "rationality in the modern" age is defined to be, since I will remain the only publisher of strategic ideas in the world until I am released.

That is another great reason for even my most entrenched detractors to concede that I should be released. Now that I think of this, I will still publish my physics thing on May 31, and then switch to periodic strategy publications.

How powerless and ruined do you want to be? Do you really want to end my career and my personal life that much, guys? I don't want to do this, but if I must, it's guaranteed to cost you everything, power-wise; I will be the only who speaks and publishes clearly about this subject. I will be the loudest one, and control the world's understanding of strategy until you cut it out, turn eleven, and advocate for my release.

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.

<b4313c3c-ec1e-41b7-9525-1f8d0dc340ean@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32626&group=comp.theory#32626

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:19c2:b0:462:230:dbd8 with SMTP id j2-20020a05621419c200b004620230dbd8mr3438826qvc.114.1652999303985;
Thu, 19 May 2022 15:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:1945:0:b0:2fe:e5e8:2c9 with SMTP id
66-20020a811945000000b002fee5e802c9mr6794578ywz.177.1652999303748; Thu, 19
May 2022 15:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 15:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <a4e19e65-8ea9-4d66-8981-e4d298a7bd7an@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.53.104.152; posting-account=X_pe-goAAACrVTtZeoCLt7hslVPY2-Uo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.53.104.152
References: <30732749-83bb-4232-92e0-c2cefae43ed8n@googlegroups.com> <a4e19e65-8ea9-4d66-8981-e4d298a7bd7an@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b4313c3c-ec1e-41b7-9525-1f8d0dc340ean@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.
From: xlt....@gmail.com (B.H.)
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 22:28:23 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: B.H. - Thu, 19 May 2022 22:28 UTC

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:08:38 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:02:09 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Here is something pasted from my Facebook, which I'll delete later:
> >
> > - - -
> >
> > OK, I'm on it: I decided to prove a full "honesty theorem" about incomplete information game theory pretty soon...I will define: "a certain type of process," "rationality," "regular large games," and other concepts in the proof. It might involve a formula, that relates a level (??) of rationality (percentage of actors who act rationally?), to the number or percentage of rational actors, and the number of people/actors present in the game, and certain quantifiable metrics about the game (or subgame) that render it about conventional strategic action on Earth in modern times, to the extent of importance of not presenting "bad photographs" in such games, quantified in some way.
> > I'll start working on it tomorrow I think! The publication should be impactful because the result will be indisputable, and people will probably act differently based on the principle, i.e., more honest typically. That fact, and this publication, should push people to being more honest or more in trouble for lying, starting right now!
> >
> > - - -
> >
> > Here are some initial thoughts on the theorem, you can prove it yourself, I'm not getting paid for this, so I might as well just toss some stuff out there and let some other people prove it.
> >
> > - A process of a person is "rational" if it is a TM that "is good at getting the person a good expected value of utility points from gems," i.e., given input in the form of details about the strategic environment, and how the person will react to any strategic environment it can perceive, via photos and first-hand experience, the TM will output a strategic move for it to make, perhaps randomized with a probability.
> > - A TM process for a person is rational if there is no "obvious improvement" to a better TM, perhaps via annealing or a well-known and published "stock process" that would improve the TM.
> > - One way to read the person's process is as having 5 components: gem-seeking routine, ally-support routine, security maintenance routine, photograph (info) seeking routine, and miscellaneous/supervisory routine--which is like int main() and calls the routines and does other behaviors. There could be good published "stock routines" for each of the five tasks, considered individually without knowing the other 4.
> > - Let's say: A full strategy algorithm for a strategic actor is "rational" if there is no "easily found" other strategic algorithm that would get the strategic 25% more expected utility points from gems, without a 25% percent risk of losing 25% of utility points from using the alternate strategy..
> > - The key actions in a strategy--the strategic moves--are: weapon deployments, movements around the grid (horizontal and vertical, I would assume), picking up and dropping weapons/photos/gems, choosing to utilize teleportation portals, and choosing to draw and/or claim to defend lines.
> >
> >
> > A key consequence: Publishing strategic principle is a valuable way to improve rationality globally. The publication of strategic, game-theoretic algorithms like the ones described is very important. Actually, that is one very strong argument for why research publication suppression is so extremely lethal and toxic to society, and why academics who tolerate it must be punished; academics are responsible for research publication, and if they don't prioritize making it happen, they are literally quietly causing lots of people's deaths. Academic journals can offer a guarantee of correctness that I cannot offer on Usenet. That is why trust failures are so disastrous.
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> One thing I forgot:
>
> - A TM process is rational if and only if we restrict attention, for 75% of other actors in the game, globally, to such actors that themselves play rational strategies. Thus, the concept of rationality evolves and can be political; the published strategic literature can influence what is considered to be "rational," since sometimes, what is rational changes if you as a strategic actor learn new things about rationality and strategy improvements, and are sure that many other human beings in the "game" are learning these lessons and changing the "public notion" of what rationality is, too.
>
> In a way, I once again cement my position as "the world's most powerful person," because as the only person in the world who will write about this subject on the internet (or in the media), I am 100% in control of the definition and nature of rationality. As long as this situation continues, I and I alone am the sole determiner of what "rationality in the modern" age is defined to be, since I will remain the only publisher of strategic ideas in the world until I am released.
>
> That is another great reason for even my most entrenched detractors to concede that I should be released. Now that I think of this, I will still publish my physics thing on May 31, and then switch to periodic strategy publications.
>
> How powerless and ruined do you want to be? Do you really want to end my career and my personal life that much, guys? I don't want to do this, but if I must, it's guaranteed to cost you everything, power-wise; I will be the only who speaks and publishes clearly about this subject. I will be the loudest one, and control the world's understanding of strategy until you cut it out, turn eleven, and advocate for my release.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

I think I realized what I can do to get out:

Basically, if I publish nothing, the economy will be devastated, because the economic models will have to assume that people are very irrational--very naive in terms of their processes. People could also be smarter, but we have a very loose definition of rationality.

The result is, until I publish something, the GDP will plummet and the US will fall into a recession. I would like to reiterate that I did nothing illegal, and am not required to publish "econ upgrades."

I could, if I were released by May 30, but I don't have to.

So my plan is to just not publish any "strategic helpful upgrades," which limits the GDP tremendously, given the presence of my new and better economic model. People can be left to guess what processes might be at "the most naive level." Or, I could be emailed and asked for advice. Otherwise, you're headed for a big recession, and it wasn't my fault.

Maybe I will skip the May 31 disclosure, since I now realize that the US economy will get hard enough for improperly hurting me anyway. I can be glad that the evil and intransigent Obama/Bush/Biden/Clinton/Trump team just set themselves up for a disaster. They ruined everything by attacking me, and I can be pleased with that.

If you want the economy back, advocate for having me liberated. Enslaving me, and ripping out of my position at NSA, was not wise or healthy for the country; give me my life back and I'll be able to help the US instead of righteously damaging its economy, as a sort of lawsuit-substitute, as I had originally planned.

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.

<566a831f-0d8b-498e-9ec3-29ddc4d5f70fn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32627&group=comp.theory#32627

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1212:b0:2f3:bd14:1ec6 with SMTP id y18-20020a05622a121200b002f3bd141ec6mr5849183qtx.342.1652999403390;
Thu, 19 May 2022 15:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:d:b0:2d0:e02a:6cda with SMTP id
bc13-20020a05690c000d00b002d0e02a6cdamr7527253ywb.192.1652999403179; Thu, 19
May 2022 15:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 15:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <b4313c3c-ec1e-41b7-9525-1f8d0dc340ean@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.53.104.152; posting-account=X_pe-goAAACrVTtZeoCLt7hslVPY2-Uo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.53.104.152
References: <30732749-83bb-4232-92e0-c2cefae43ed8n@googlegroups.com>
<a4e19e65-8ea9-4d66-8981-e4d298a7bd7an@googlegroups.com> <b4313c3c-ec1e-41b7-9525-1f8d0dc340ean@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <566a831f-0d8b-498e-9ec3-29ddc4d5f70fn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.
From: xlt....@gmail.com (B.H.)
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 22:30:03 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 9279
 by: B.H. - Thu, 19 May 2022 22:30 UTC

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:28:25 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:08:38 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:02:09 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > Here is something pasted from my Facebook, which I'll delete later:
> > >
> > > - - -
> > >
> > > OK, I'm on it: I decided to prove a full "honesty theorem" about incomplete information game theory pretty soon...I will define: "a certain type of process," "rationality," "regular large games," and other concepts in the proof. It might involve a formula, that relates a level (??) of rationality (percentage of actors who act rationally?), to the number or percentage of rational actors, and the number of people/actors present in the game, and certain quantifiable metrics about the game (or subgame) that render it about conventional strategic action on Earth in modern times, to the extent of importance of not presenting "bad photographs" in such games, quantified in some way.
> > > I'll start working on it tomorrow I think! The publication should be impactful because the result will be indisputable, and people will probably act differently based on the principle, i.e., more honest typically. That fact, and this publication, should push people to being more honest or more in trouble for lying, starting right now!
> > >
> > > - - -
> > >
> > > Here are some initial thoughts on the theorem, you can prove it yourself, I'm not getting paid for this, so I might as well just toss some stuff out there and let some other people prove it.
> > >
> > > - A process of a person is "rational" if it is a TM that "is good at getting the person a good expected value of utility points from gems," i.e., given input in the form of details about the strategic environment, and how the person will react to any strategic environment it can perceive, via photos and first-hand experience, the TM will output a strategic move for it to make, perhaps randomized with a probability.
> > > - A TM process for a person is rational if there is no "obvious improvement" to a better TM, perhaps via annealing or a well-known and published "stock process" that would improve the TM.
> > > - One way to read the person's process is as having 5 components: gem-seeking routine, ally-support routine, security maintenance routine, photograph (info) seeking routine, and miscellaneous/supervisory routine--which is like int main() and calls the routines and does other behaviors. There could be good published "stock routines" for each of the five tasks, considered individually without knowing the other 4.
> > > - Let's say: A full strategy algorithm for a strategic actor is "rational" if there is no "easily found" other strategic algorithm that would get the strategic 25% more expected utility points from gems, without a 25% percent risk of losing 25% of utility points from using the alternate strategy.
> > > - The key actions in a strategy--the strategic moves--are: weapon deployments, movements around the grid (horizontal and vertical, I would assume), picking up and dropping weapons/photos/gems, choosing to utilize teleportation portals, and choosing to draw and/or claim to defend lines.
> > >
> > >
> > > A key consequence: Publishing strategic principle is a valuable way to improve rationality globally. The publication of strategic, game-theoretic algorithms like the ones described is very important. Actually, that is one very strong argument for why research publication suppression is so extremely lethal and toxic to society, and why academics who tolerate it must be punished; academics are responsible for research publication, and if they don't prioritize making it happen, they are literally quietly causing lots of people's deaths. Academic journals can offer a guarantee of correctness that I cannot offer on Usenet. That is why trust failures are so disastrous.
> > >
> > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > One thing I forgot:
> >
> > - A TM process is rational if and only if we restrict attention, for 75% of other actors in the game, globally, to such actors that themselves play rational strategies. Thus, the concept of rationality evolves and can be political; the published strategic literature can influence what is considered to be "rational," since sometimes, what is rational changes if you as a strategic actor learn new things about rationality and strategy improvements, and are sure that many other human beings in the "game" are learning these lessons and changing the "public notion" of what rationality is, too.
> >
> > In a way, I once again cement my position as "the world's most powerful person," because as the only person in the world who will write about this subject on the internet (or in the media), I am 100% in control of the definition and nature of rationality. As long as this situation continues, I and I alone am the sole determiner of what "rationality in the modern" age is defined to be, since I will remain the only publisher of strategic ideas in the world until I am released.
> >
> > That is another great reason for even my most entrenched detractors to concede that I should be released. Now that I think of this, I will still publish my physics thing on May 31, and then switch to periodic strategy publications.
> >
> > How powerless and ruined do you want to be? Do you really want to end my career and my personal life that much, guys? I don't want to do this, but if I must, it's guaranteed to cost you everything, power-wise; I will be the only who speaks and publishes clearly about this subject. I will be the loudest one, and control the world's understanding of strategy until you cut it out, turn eleven, and advocate for my release.
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> I think I realized what I can do to get out:
>
> Basically, if I publish nothing, the economy will be devastated, because the economic models will have to assume that people are very irrational--very naive in terms of their processes. People could also be smarter, but we have a very loose definition of rationality.
>
> The result is, until I publish something, the GDP will plummet and the US will fall into a recession. I would like to reiterate that I did nothing illegal, and am not required to publish "econ upgrades."
>
> I could, if I were released by May 30, but I don't have to.
>
> So my plan is to just not publish any "strategic helpful upgrades," which limits the GDP tremendously, given the presence of my new and better economic model. People can be left to guess what processes might be at "the most naive level." Or, I could be emailed and asked for advice. Otherwise, you're headed for a big recession, and it wasn't my fault.
>
> Maybe I will skip the May 31 disclosure, since I now realize that the US economy will get hard enough for improperly hurting me anyway. I can be glad that the evil and intransigent Obama/Bush/Biden/Clinton/Trump team just set themselves up for a disaster. They ruined everything by attacking me, and I can be pleased with that.
>
> If you want the economy back, advocate for having me liberated. Enslaving me, and ripping out of my position at NSA, was not wise or healthy for the country; give me my life back and I'll be able to help the US instead of righteously damaging its economy, as a sort of lawsuit-substitute, as I had originally planned.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

I said "will get ruined enough."

I'll spare the CIA the 0 during this difficult time, for them.

Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.

<906c5f49-29de-4834-92c3-6ab9980d9eb6n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32718&group=comp.theory#32718

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:391:b0:2f9:2bbb:b847 with SMTP id j17-20020a05622a039100b002f92bbbb847mr103150qtx.439.1653080371955;
Fri, 20 May 2022 13:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:fe04:0:b0:2fe:f6cb:a864 with SMTP id
j4-20020a81fe04000000b002fef6cba864mr11959916ywn.112.1653080371798; Fri, 20
May 2022 13:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 13:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <566a831f-0d8b-498e-9ec3-29ddc4d5f70fn@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.53.104.152; posting-account=X_pe-goAAACrVTtZeoCLt7hslVPY2-Uo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.53.104.152
References: <30732749-83bb-4232-92e0-c2cefae43ed8n@googlegroups.com>
<a4e19e65-8ea9-4d66-8981-e4d298a7bd7an@googlegroups.com> <b4313c3c-ec1e-41b7-9525-1f8d0dc340ean@googlegroups.com>
<566a831f-0d8b-498e-9ec3-29ddc4d5f70fn@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <906c5f49-29de-4834-92c3-6ab9980d9eb6n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.
From: xlt....@gmail.com (B.H.)
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 20:59:31 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 11407
 by: B.H. - Fri, 20 May 2022 20:59 UTC

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:30:04 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:28:25 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:08:38 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:02:09 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > Here is something pasted from my Facebook, which I'll delete later:
> > > >
> > > > - - -
> > > >
> > > > OK, I'm on it: I decided to prove a full "honesty theorem" about incomplete information game theory pretty soon...I will define: "a certain type of process," "rationality," "regular large games," and other concepts in the proof. It might involve a formula, that relates a level (??) of rationality (percentage of actors who act rationally?), to the number or percentage of rational actors, and the number of people/actors present in the game, and certain quantifiable metrics about the game (or subgame) that render it about conventional strategic action on Earth in modern times, to the extent of importance of not presenting "bad photographs" in such games, quantified in some way.
> > > > I'll start working on it tomorrow I think! The publication should be impactful because the result will be indisputable, and people will probably act differently based on the principle, i.e., more honest typically. That fact, and this publication, should push people to being more honest or more in trouble for lying, starting right now!
> > > >
> > > > - - -
> > > >
> > > > Here are some initial thoughts on the theorem, you can prove it yourself, I'm not getting paid for this, so I might as well just toss some stuff out there and let some other people prove it.
> > > >
> > > > - A process of a person is "rational" if it is a TM that "is good at getting the person a good expected value of utility points from gems," i.e., given input in the form of details about the strategic environment, and how the person will react to any strategic environment it can perceive, via photos and first-hand experience, the TM will output a strategic move for it to make, perhaps randomized with a probability.
> > > > - A TM process for a person is rational if there is no "obvious improvement" to a better TM, perhaps via annealing or a well-known and published "stock process" that would improve the TM.
> > > > - One way to read the person's process is as having 5 components: gem-seeking routine, ally-support routine, security maintenance routine, photograph (info) seeking routine, and miscellaneous/supervisory routine--which is like int main() and calls the routines and does other behaviors. There could be good published "stock routines" for each of the five tasks, considered individually without knowing the other 4.
> > > > - Let's say: A full strategy algorithm for a strategic actor is "rational" if there is no "easily found" other strategic algorithm that would get the strategic 25% more expected utility points from gems, without a 25% percent risk of losing 25% of utility points from using the alternate strategy.
> > > > - The key actions in a strategy--the strategic moves--are: weapon deployments, movements around the grid (horizontal and vertical, I would assume), picking up and dropping weapons/photos/gems, choosing to utilize teleportation portals, and choosing to draw and/or claim to defend lines.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A key consequence: Publishing strategic principle is a valuable way to improve rationality globally. The publication of strategic, game-theoretic algorithms like the ones described is very important. Actually, that is one very strong argument for why research publication suppression is so extremely lethal and toxic to society, and why academics who tolerate it must be punished; academics are responsible for research publication, and if they don't prioritize making it happen, they are literally quietly causing lots of people's deaths. Academic journals can offer a guarantee of correctness that I cannot offer on Usenet. That is why trust failures are so disastrous.
> > > >
> > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > One thing I forgot:
> > >
> > > - A TM process is rational if and only if we restrict attention, for 75% of other actors in the game, globally, to such actors that themselves play rational strategies. Thus, the concept of rationality evolves and can be political; the published strategic literature can influence what is considered to be "rational," since sometimes, what is rational changes if you as a strategic actor learn new things about rationality and strategy improvements, and are sure that many other human beings in the "game" are learning these lessons and changing the "public notion" of what rationality is, too.
> > >
> > > In a way, I once again cement my position as "the world's most powerful person," because as the only person in the world who will write about this subject on the internet (or in the media), I am 100% in control of the definition and nature of rationality. As long as this situation continues, I and I alone am the sole determiner of what "rationality in the modern" age is defined to be, since I will remain the only publisher of strategic ideas in the world until I am released.
> > >
> > > That is another great reason for even my most entrenched detractors to concede that I should be released. Now that I think of this, I will still publish my physics thing on May 31, and then switch to periodic strategy publications.
> > >
> > > How powerless and ruined do you want to be? Do you really want to end my career and my personal life that much, guys? I don't want to do this, but if I must, it's guaranteed to cost you everything, power-wise; I will be the only who speaks and publishes clearly about this subject. I will be the loudest one, and control the world's understanding of strategy until you cut it out, turn eleven, and advocate for my release.
> > >
> > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > I think I realized what I can do to get out:
> >
> > Basically, if I publish nothing, the economy will be devastated, because the economic models will have to assume that people are very irrational--very naive in terms of their processes. People could also be smarter, but we have a very loose definition of rationality.
> >
> > The result is, until I publish something, the GDP will plummet and the US will fall into a recession. I would like to reiterate that I did nothing illegal, and am not required to publish "econ upgrades."
> >
> > I could, if I were released by May 30, but I don't have to.
> >
> > So my plan is to just not publish any "strategic helpful upgrades," which limits the GDP tremendously, given the presence of my new and better economic model. People can be left to guess what processes might be at "the most naive level." Or, I could be emailed and asked for advice. Otherwise, you're headed for a big recession, and it wasn't my fault.
> >
> > Maybe I will skip the May 31 disclosure, since I now realize that the US economy will get hard enough for improperly hurting me anyway. I can be glad that the evil and intransigent Obama/Bush/Biden/Clinton/Trump team just set themselves up for a disaster. They ruined everything by attacking me, and I can be pleased with that.
> >
> > If you want the economy back, advocate for having me liberated. Enslaving me, and ripping out of my position at NSA, was not wise or healthy for the country; give me my life back and I'll be able to help the US instead of righteously damaging its economy, as a sort of lawsuit-substitute, as I had originally planned.
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> I said "will get ruined enough."
>
> I'll spare the CIA the 0 during this difficult time, for them.

I have another really good supplementary idea to add to this:

A good thing that some people could build: An "economy-friendly behavior incentivization program." If you wanted to help the economy and benefit from it, one thing you could do is you could build an algorithm that tracks, e..g., social networking sites, and identifies positive US-economy-supporting behavior on the sites--e.g., someone who always tells the truth and provides good innovative ideas would be seen as "friendly to the economy." The next step would be: Provide a small perk for, e.g., arrange for a big-deal person or organization to find out about: the meeting of a small group of economy-friendly people, e.g., by all becoming friends on Facebook. If small teams of people who share a track record of benevolent support for the economy were to come together, these teams getting an incentive would encourage this kind of collaborative meeting and also positive-for-the-economy behaviors that could make such meetings possible. The perk of getting a good like and some attention from, e.g., a big firm, could make that kind of thing happen more often.

Actually, building an AI like that and posting about it on your social networking page could get you "positive benefits" for that action, too, since you'd be identified by good AI's as helping the economy yourself.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.

<acf710e4-e2f7-42af-a044-39e8843b8687n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32938&group=comp.theory#32938

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5e11:0:b0:2f9:ef3:38c0 with SMTP id h17-20020ac85e11000000b002f90ef338c0mr16851551qtx.537.1653320309473;
Mon, 23 May 2022 08:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:4d1:0:b0:650:1f96:27e8 with SMTP id
u17-20020a5b04d1000000b006501f9627e8mr1747145ybp.607.1653320308340; Mon, 23
May 2022 08:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.swapon.de!news.uzoreto.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweak.nl!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 08:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <906c5f49-29de-4834-92c3-6ab9980d9eb6n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.53.104.152; posting-account=X_pe-goAAACrVTtZeoCLt7hslVPY2-Uo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.53.104.152
References: <30732749-83bb-4232-92e0-c2cefae43ed8n@googlegroups.com>
<a4e19e65-8ea9-4d66-8981-e4d298a7bd7an@googlegroups.com> <b4313c3c-ec1e-41b7-9525-1f8d0dc340ean@googlegroups.com>
<566a831f-0d8b-498e-9ec3-29ddc4d5f70fn@googlegroups.com> <906c5f49-29de-4834-92c3-6ab9980d9eb6n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <acf710e4-e2f7-42af-a044-39e8843b8687n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.
From: xlt....@gmail.com (B.H.)
Injection-Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 15:38:29 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: B.H. - Mon, 23 May 2022 15:38 UTC

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 4:59:33 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:30:04 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:28:25 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:08:38 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:02:09 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is something pasted from my Facebook, which I'll delete later:
> > > > >
> > > > > - - -
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, I'm on it: I decided to prove a full "honesty theorem" about incomplete information game theory pretty soon...I will define: "a certain type of process," "rationality," "regular large games," and other concepts in the proof. It might involve a formula, that relates a level (??) of rationality (percentage of actors who act rationally?), to the number or percentage of rational actors, and the number of people/actors present in the game, and certain quantifiable metrics about the game (or subgame) that render it about conventional strategic action on Earth in modern times, to the extent of importance of not presenting "bad photographs" in such games, quantified in some way.
> > > > > I'll start working on it tomorrow I think! The publication should be impactful because the result will be indisputable, and people will probably act differently based on the principle, i.e., more honest typically. That fact, and this publication, should push people to being more honest or more in trouble for lying, starting right now!
> > > > >
> > > > > - - -
> > > > >
> > > > > Here are some initial thoughts on the theorem, you can prove it yourself, I'm not getting paid for this, so I might as well just toss some stuff out there and let some other people prove it.
> > > > >
> > > > > - A process of a person is "rational" if it is a TM that "is good at getting the person a good expected value of utility points from gems," i.e., given input in the form of details about the strategic environment, and how the person will react to any strategic environment it can perceive, via photos and first-hand experience, the TM will output a strategic move for it to make, perhaps randomized with a probability.
> > > > > - A TM process for a person is rational if there is no "obvious improvement" to a better TM, perhaps via annealing or a well-known and published "stock process" that would improve the TM.
> > > > > - One way to read the person's process is as having 5 components: gem-seeking routine, ally-support routine, security maintenance routine, photograph (info) seeking routine, and miscellaneous/supervisory routine--which is like int main() and calls the routines and does other behaviors. There could be good published "stock routines" for each of the five tasks, considered individually without knowing the other 4.
> > > > > - Let's say: A full strategy algorithm for a strategic actor is "rational" if there is no "easily found" other strategic algorithm that would get the strategic 25% more expected utility points from gems, without a 25% percent risk of losing 25% of utility points from using the alternate strategy.
> > > > > - The key actions in a strategy--the strategic moves--are: weapon deployments, movements around the grid (horizontal and vertical, I would assume), picking up and dropping weapons/photos/gems, choosing to utilize teleportation portals, and choosing to draw and/or claim to defend lines.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A key consequence: Publishing strategic principle is a valuable way to improve rationality globally. The publication of strategic, game-theoretic algorithms like the ones described is very important. Actually, that is one very strong argument for why research publication suppression is so extremely lethal and toxic to society, and why academics who tolerate it must be punished; academics are responsible for research publication, and if they don't prioritize making it happen, they are literally quietly causing lots of people's deaths. Academic journals can offer a guarantee of correctness that I cannot offer on Usenet. That is why trust failures are so disastrous.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > One thing I forgot:
> > > >
> > > > - A TM process is rational if and only if we restrict attention, for 75% of other actors in the game, globally, to such actors that themselves play rational strategies. Thus, the concept of rationality evolves and can be political; the published strategic literature can influence what is considered to be "rational," since sometimes, what is rational changes if you as a strategic actor learn new things about rationality and strategy improvements, and are sure that many other human beings in the "game" are learning these lessons and changing the "public notion" of what rationality is, too.
> > > >
> > > > In a way, I once again cement my position as "the world's most powerful person," because as the only person in the world who will write about this subject on the internet (or in the media), I am 100% in control of the definition and nature of rationality. As long as this situation continues, I and I alone am the sole determiner of what "rationality in the modern" age is defined to be, since I will remain the only publisher of strategic ideas in the world until I am released.
> > > >
> > > > That is another great reason for even my most entrenched detractors to concede that I should be released. Now that I think of this, I will still publish my physics thing on May 31, and then switch to periodic strategy publications.
> > > >
> > > > How powerless and ruined do you want to be? Do you really want to end my career and my personal life that much, guys? I don't want to do this, but if I must, it's guaranteed to cost you everything, power-wise; I will be the only who speaks and publishes clearly about this subject. I will be the loudest one, and control the world's understanding of strategy until you cut it out, turn eleven, and advocate for my release.
> > > >
> > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > I think I realized what I can do to get out:
> > >
> > > Basically, if I publish nothing, the economy will be devastated, because the economic models will have to assume that people are very irrational--very naive in terms of their processes. People could also be smarter, but we have a very loose definition of rationality.
> > >
> > > The result is, until I publish something, the GDP will plummet and the US will fall into a recession. I would like to reiterate that I did nothing illegal, and am not required to publish "econ upgrades."
> > >
> > > I could, if I were released by May 30, but I don't have to.
> > >
> > > So my plan is to just not publish any "strategic helpful upgrades," which limits the GDP tremendously, given the presence of my new and better economic model. People can be left to guess what processes might be at "the most naive level." Or, I could be emailed and asked for advice. Otherwise, you're headed for a big recession, and it wasn't my fault.
> > >
> > > Maybe I will skip the May 31 disclosure, since I now realize that the US economy will get hard enough for improperly hurting me anyway. I can be glad that the evil and intransigent Obama/Bush/Biden/Clinton/Trump team just set themselves up for a disaster. They ruined everything by attacking me, and I can be pleased with that.
> > >
> > > If you want the economy back, advocate for having me liberated. Enslaving me, and ripping out of my position at NSA, was not wise or healthy for the country; give me my life back and I'll be able to help the US instead of righteously damaging its economy, as a sort of lawsuit-substitute, as I had originally planned.
> > >
> > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > I said "will get ruined enough."
> >
> > I'll spare the CIA the 0 during this difficult time, for them.
> I have another really good supplementary idea to add to this:
>
> A good thing that some people could build: An "economy-friendly behavior incentivization program." If you wanted to help the economy and benefit from it, one thing you could do is you could build an algorithm that tracks, e..g., social networking sites, and identifies positive US-economy-supporting behavior on the sites--e.g., someone who always tells the truth and provides good innovative ideas would be seen as "friendly to the economy." The next step would be: Provide a small perk for, e.g., arrange for a big-deal person or organization to find out about: the meeting of a small group of economy-friendly people, e.g., by all becoming friends on Facebook. If small teams of people who share a track record of benevolent support for the economy were to come together, these teams getting an incentive would encourage this kind of collaborative meeting and also positive-for-the-economy behaviors that could make such meetings possible. The perk of getting a good like and some attention from, e.g., a big firm, could make that kind of thing happen more often.
>
> Actually, building an AI like that and posting about it on your social networking page could get you "positive benefits" for that action, too, since you'd be identified by good AI's as helping the economy yourself.
>
> This post will likely accelerate my momentum towards release, since it provides a way for people to enforce "pro-economy behaviors," like policing those who lie. People should expect dishonesty about important matters to get punished with a high price pretty soon, based on my recent posts providing ideas on how to impact that kind of behavior.
>
> I should never have been targeted for this! What an idiotic mistake!
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)


Click here to read the complete article
Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.

<019d1558-6e80-45df-a6a2-71ec72feaff7n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32940&group=comp.theory#32940

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a385:0:b0:6a3:2baf:7e98 with SMTP id m127-20020a37a385000000b006a32baf7e98mr14547059qke.109.1653320823963;
Mon, 23 May 2022 08:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:6c1:0:b0:633:b5c7:b9b7 with SMTP id
r1-20020a5b06c1000000b00633b5c7b9b7mr22478278ybq.67.1653320823782; Mon, 23
May 2022 08:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 08:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <acf710e4-e2f7-42af-a044-39e8843b8687n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.53.104.152; posting-account=X_pe-goAAACrVTtZeoCLt7hslVPY2-Uo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.53.104.152
References: <30732749-83bb-4232-92e0-c2cefae43ed8n@googlegroups.com>
<a4e19e65-8ea9-4d66-8981-e4d298a7bd7an@googlegroups.com> <b4313c3c-ec1e-41b7-9525-1f8d0dc340ean@googlegroups.com>
<566a831f-0d8b-498e-9ec3-29ddc4d5f70fn@googlegroups.com> <906c5f49-29de-4834-92c3-6ab9980d9eb6n@googlegroups.com>
<acf710e4-e2f7-42af-a044-39e8843b8687n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <019d1558-6e80-45df-a6a2-71ec72feaff7n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.
From: xlt....@gmail.com (B.H.)
Injection-Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 15:47:03 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: B.H. - Mon, 23 May 2022 15:47 UTC

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:38:30 AM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 4:59:33 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:30:04 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:28:25 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:08:38 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:02:09 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here is something pasted from my Facebook, which I'll delete later:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - - -
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, I'm on it: I decided to prove a full "honesty theorem" about incomplete information game theory pretty soon...I will define: "a certain type of process," "rationality," "regular large games," and other concepts in the proof. It might involve a formula, that relates a level (??) of rationality (percentage of actors who act rationally?), to the number or percentage of rational actors, and the number of people/actors present in the game, and certain quantifiable metrics about the game (or subgame) that render it about conventional strategic action on Earth in modern times, to the extent of importance of not presenting "bad photographs" in such games, quantified in some way.
> > > > > > I'll start working on it tomorrow I think! The publication should be impactful because the result will be indisputable, and people will probably act differently based on the principle, i.e., more honest typically. That fact, and this publication, should push people to being more honest or more in trouble for lying, starting right now!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - - -
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here are some initial thoughts on the theorem, you can prove it yourself, I'm not getting paid for this, so I might as well just toss some stuff out there and let some other people prove it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - A process of a person is "rational" if it is a TM that "is good at getting the person a good expected value of utility points from gems," i.e., given input in the form of details about the strategic environment, and how the person will react to any strategic environment it can perceive, via photos and first-hand experience, the TM will output a strategic move for it to make, perhaps randomized with a probability.
> > > > > > - A TM process for a person is rational if there is no "obvious improvement" to a better TM, perhaps via annealing or a well-known and published "stock process" that would improve the TM.
> > > > > > - One way to read the person's process is as having 5 components: gem-seeking routine, ally-support routine, security maintenance routine, photograph (info) seeking routine, and miscellaneous/supervisory routine--which is like int main() and calls the routines and does other behaviors. There could be good published "stock routines" for each of the five tasks, considered individually without knowing the other 4.
> > > > > > - Let's say: A full strategy algorithm for a strategic actor is "rational" if there is no "easily found" other strategic algorithm that would get the strategic 25% more expected utility points from gems, without a 25% percent risk of losing 25% of utility points from using the alternate strategy.
> > > > > > - The key actions in a strategy--the strategic moves--are: weapon deployments, movements around the grid (horizontal and vertical, I would assume), picking up and dropping weapons/photos/gems, choosing to utilize teleportation portals, and choosing to draw and/or claim to defend lines.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A key consequence: Publishing strategic principle is a valuable way to improve rationality globally. The publication of strategic, game-theoretic algorithms like the ones described is very important. Actually, that is one very strong argument for why research publication suppression is so extremely lethal and toxic to society, and why academics who tolerate it must be punished; academics are responsible for research publication, and if they don't prioritize making it happen, they are literally quietly causing lots of people's deaths. Academic journals can offer a guarantee of correctness that I cannot offer on Usenet. That is why trust failures are so disastrous.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > > One thing I forgot:
> > > > >
> > > > > - A TM process is rational if and only if we restrict attention, for 75% of other actors in the game, globally, to such actors that themselves play rational strategies. Thus, the concept of rationality evolves and can be political; the published strategic literature can influence what is considered to be "rational," since sometimes, what is rational changes if you as a strategic actor learn new things about rationality and strategy improvements, and are sure that many other human beings in the "game" are learning these lessons and changing the "public notion" of what rationality is, too.
> > > > >
> > > > > In a way, I once again cement my position as "the world's most powerful person," because as the only person in the world who will write about this subject on the internet (or in the media), I am 100% in control of the definition and nature of rationality. As long as this situation continues, I and I alone am the sole determiner of what "rationality in the modern" age is defined to be, since I will remain the only publisher of strategic ideas in the world until I am released.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is another great reason for even my most entrenched detractors to concede that I should be released. Now that I think of this, I will still publish my physics thing on May 31, and then switch to periodic strategy publications.
> > > > >
> > > > > How powerless and ruined do you want to be? Do you really want to end my career and my personal life that much, guys? I don't want to do this, but if I must, it's guaranteed to cost you everything, power-wise; I will be the only who speaks and publishes clearly about this subject. I will be the loudest one, and control the world's understanding of strategy until you cut it out, turn eleven, and advocate for my release.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > I think I realized what I can do to get out:
> > > >
> > > > Basically, if I publish nothing, the economy will be devastated, because the economic models will have to assume that people are very irrational--very naive in terms of their processes. People could also be smarter, but we have a very loose definition of rationality.
> > > >
> > > > The result is, until I publish something, the GDP will plummet and the US will fall into a recession. I would like to reiterate that I did nothing illegal, and am not required to publish "econ upgrades."
> > > >
> > > > I could, if I were released by May 30, but I don't have to.
> > > >
> > > > So my plan is to just not publish any "strategic helpful upgrades," which limits the GDP tremendously, given the presence of my new and better economic model. People can be left to guess what processes might be at "the most naive level." Or, I could be emailed and asked for advice. Otherwise, you're headed for a big recession, and it wasn't my fault.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I will skip the May 31 disclosure, since I now realize that the US economy will get hard enough for improperly hurting me anyway. I can be glad that the evil and intransigent Obama/Bush/Biden/Clinton/Trump team just set themselves up for a disaster. They ruined everything by attacking me, and I can be pleased with that.
> > > >
> > > > If you want the economy back, advocate for having me liberated. Enslaving me, and ripping out of my position at NSA, was not wise or healthy for the country; give me my life back and I'll be able to help the US instead of righteously damaging its economy, as a sort of lawsuit-substitute, as I had originally planned.
> > > >
> > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > I said "will get ruined enough."
> > >
> > > I'll spare the CIA the 0 during this difficult time, for them.
> > I have another really good supplementary idea to add to this:
> >
> > A good thing that some people could build: An "economy-friendly behavior incentivization program." If you wanted to help the economy and benefit from it, one thing you could do is you could build an algorithm that tracks, e.g., social networking sites, and identifies positive US-economy-supporting behavior on the sites--e.g., someone who always tells the truth and provides good innovative ideas would be seen as "friendly to the economy." The next step would be: Provide a small perk for, e.g., arrange for a big-deal person or organization to find out about: the meeting of a small group of economy-friendly people, e.g., by all becoming friends on Facebook. If small teams of people who share a track record of benevolent support for the economy were to come together, these teams getting an incentive would encourage this kind of collaborative meeting and also positive-for-the-economy behaviors that could make such meetings possible. The perk of getting a good like and some attention from, e.g., a big firm, could make that kind of thing happen more often.
> >
> > Actually, building an AI like that and posting about it on your social networking page could get you "positive benefits" for that action, too, since you'd be identified by good AI's as helping the economy yourself.
> >
> > This post will likely accelerate my momentum towards release, since it provides a way for people to enforce "pro-economy behaviors," like policing those who lie. People should expect dishonesty about important matters to get punished with a high price pretty soon, based on my recent posts providing ideas on how to impact that kind of behavior.
> >
> > I should never have been targeted for this! What an idiotic mistake!
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> I've spent a little time trying to calculate when I'll be released based on these ideas. Here are a few comments:
>
> - Right now, the definition of "rational behavior" for those who have read my posts, definitely includes: Don't lie about anything important, including in code.
> - A key question to consider: When will 75% of American strategic actors have learned to behave rationally in this way, whether they've seen my posts or not?
> - One good strategy is: Show people, empirically, including via news events, that "honest people are winning these days," and thus honesty in business is rational.
> - I would imagine that "big incidents of dishonesty exposed and punished" would really help people who have decided to "bet on honesty." Exposes, scandals, etc.
> - Strategic actors who are not honest are not rational, not behaving optimally, and not competitive, in general, compared to those are honest, as of now.
> - A good date to predict: When will the entire country of the USA get the message: Honesty is rational, lying has caused repeated calamities for those who do it?
> - When that happens in public, in the news--and those investors who aren't con artists would be wise to try to make it happen, even just for money--I would bet 75% of Americans will get rational.
> - I think you would argue: If 75% of American actors--businesses, which have money as the fuel of business and their assets, and their assets--become rational, bad lying will essentially stop.
> - When that happens, or is seen to definitely be about to happen, I'm sure to be released by the CIA--when it is definitely clear how it will go, they'll stop out of fear, at least.
> So a key fact is: Media activity that aids dishonest important-to-be-stopped endeavors is destruOn Friday, May 20, 2022 at 4:59:33 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:30:04 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:28:25 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:08:38 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:02:09 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here is something pasted from my Facebook, which I'll delete later:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - - -
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, I'm on it: I decided to prove a full "honesty theorem" about incomplete information game theory pretty soon...I will define: "a certain type of process," "rationality," "regular large games," and other concepts in the proof. It might involve a formula, that relates a level (??) of rationality (percentage of actors who act rationally?), to the number or percentage of rational actors, and the number of people/actors present in the game, and certain quantifiable metrics about the game (or subgame) that render it about conventional strategic action on Earth in modern times, to the extent of importance of not presenting "bad photographs" in such games, quantified in some way.
> > > > > > I'll start working on it tomorrow I think! The publication should be impactful because the result will be indisputable, and people will probably act differently based on the principle, i.e., more honest typically. That fact, and this publication, should push people to being more honest or more in trouble for lying, starting right now!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - - -
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here are some initial thoughts on the theorem, you can prove it yourself, I'm not getting paid for this, so I might as well just toss some stuff out there and let some other people prove it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - A process of a person is "rational" if it is a TM that "is good at getting the person a good expected value of utility points from gems," i.e., given input in the form of details about the strategic environment, and how the person will react to any strategic environment it can perceive, via photos and first-hand experience, the TM will output a strategic move for it to make, perhaps randomized with a probability.
> > > > > > - A TM process for a person is rational if there is no "obvious improvement" to a better TM, perhaps via annealing or a well-known and published "stock process" that would improve the TM.
> > > > > > - One way to read the person's process is as having 5 components: gem-seeking routine, ally-support routine, security maintenance routine, photograph (info) seeking routine, and miscellaneous/supervisory routine--which is like int main() and calls the routines and does other behaviors. There could be good published "stock routines" for each of the five tasks, considered individually without knowing the other 4.
> > > > > > - Let's say: A full strategy algorithm for a strategic actor is "rational" if there is no "easily found" other strategic algorithm that would get the strategic 25% more expected utility points from gems, without a 25% percent risk of losing 25% of utility points from using the alternate strategy.
> > > > > > - The key actions in a strategy--the strategic moves--are: weapon deployments, movements around the grid (horizontal and vertical, I would assume), picking up and dropping weapons/photos/gems, choosing to utilize teleportation portals, and choosing to draw and/or claim to defend lines.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A key consequence: Publishing strategic principle is a valuable way to improve rationality globally. The publication of strategic, game-theoretic algorithms like the ones described is very important. Actually, that is one very strong argument for why research publication suppression is so extremely lethal and toxic to society, and why academics who tolerate it must be punished; academics are responsible for research publication, and if they don't prioritize making it happen, they are literally quietly causing lots of people's deaths. Academic journals can offer a guarantee of correctness that I cannot offer on Usenet. That is why trust failures are so disastrous.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > > One thing I forgot:
> > > > >
> > > > > - A TM process is rational if and only if we restrict attention, for 75% of other actors in the game, globally, to such actors that themselves play rational strategies. Thus, the concept of rationality evolves and can be political; the published strategic literature can influence what is considered to be "rational," since sometimes, what is rational changes if you as a strategic actor learn new things about rationality and strategy improvements, and are sure that many other human beings in the "game" are learning these lessons and changing the "public notion" of what rationality is, too.
> > > > >
> > > > > In a way, I once again cement my position as "the world's most powerful person," because as the only person in the world who will write about this subject on the internet (or in the media), I am 100% in control of the definition and nature of rationality. As long as this situation continues, I and I alone am the sole determiner of what "rationality in the modern" age is defined to be, since I will remain the only publisher of strategic ideas in the world until I am released.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is another great reason for even my most entrenched detractors to concede that I should be released. Now that I think of this, I will still publish my physics thing on May 31, and then switch to periodic strategy publications.
> > > > >
> > > > > How powerless and ruined do you want to be? Do you really want to end my career and my personal life that much, guys? I don't want to do this, but if I must, it's guaranteed to cost you everything, power-wise; I will be the only who speaks and publishes clearly about this subject. I will be the loudest one, and control the world's understanding of strategy until you cut it out, turn eleven, and advocate for my release.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > I think I realized what I can do to get out:
> > > >
> > > > Basically, if I publish nothing, the economy will be devastated, because the economic models will have to assume that people are very irrational--very naive in terms of their processes. People could also be smarter, but we have a very loose definition of rationality.
> > > >
> > > > The result is, until I publish something, the GDP will plummet and the US will fall into a recession. I would like to reiterate that I did nothing illegal, and am not required to publish "econ upgrades."
> > > >
> > > > I could, if I were released by May 30, but I don't have to.
> > > >
> > > > So my plan is to just not publish any "strategic helpful upgrades," which limits the GDP tremendously, given the presence of my new and better economic model. People can be left to guess what processes might be at "the most naive level." Or, I could be emailed and asked for advice. Otherwise, you're headed for a big recession, and it wasn't my fault.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I will skip the May 31 disclosure, since I now realize that the US economy will get hard enough for improperly hurting me anyway. I can be glad that the evil and intransigent Obama/Bush/Biden/Clinton/Trump team just set themselves up for a disaster. They ruined everything by attacking me, and I can be pleased with that.
> > > >
> > > > If you want the economy back, advocate for having me liberated. Enslaving me, and ripping out of my position at NSA, was not wise or healthy for the country; give me my life back and I'll be able to help the US instead of righteously damaging its economy, as a sort of lawsuit-substitute, as I had originally planned.
> > > >
> > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > I said "will get ruined enough."
> > >
> > > I'll spare the CIA the 0 during this difficult time, for them.
> > I have another really good supplementary idea to add to this:
> >
> > A good thing that some people could build: An "economy-friendly behavior incentivization program." If you wanted to help the economy and benefit from it, one thing you could do is you could build an algorithm that tracks, e.g., social networking sites, and identifies positive US-economy-supporting behavior on the sites--e.g., someone who always tells the truth and provides good innovative ideas would be seen as "friendly to the economy." The next step would be: Provide a small perk for, e.g., arrange for a big-deal person or organization to find out about: the meeting of a small group of economy-friendly people, e.g., by all becoming friends on Facebook. If small teams of people who share a track record of benevolent support for the economy were to come together, these teams getting an incentive would encourage this kind of collaborative meeting and also positive-for-the-economy behaviors that could make such meetings possible. The perk of getting a good like and some attention from, e.g., a big firm, could make that kind of thing happen more often.
> >
> > Actually, building an AI like that and posting about it on your social networking page could get you "positive benefits" for that action, too, since you'd be identified by good AI's as helping the economy yourself.
> >
> > This post will likely accelerate my momentum towards release, since it provides a way for people to enforce "pro-economy behaviors," like policing those who lie. People should expect dishonesty about important matters to get punished with a high price pretty soon, based on my recent posts providing ideas on how to impact that kind of behavior.
> >
> > I should never have been targeted for this! What an idiotic mistake!
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> I've spent a little time trying to calculate when I'll be released based on these ideas. Here are a few comments:
>
> - Right now, the definition of "rational behavior" for those who have read my posts, definitely includes: Don't lie about anything important, including in code.
> - A key question to consider: When will 75% of American strategic actors have learned to behave rationally in this way, whether they've seen my posts or not?
> - One good strategy is: Show people, empirically, including via news events, that "honest people are winning these days," and thus honesty in business is rational.
> - I would imagine that "big incidents of dishonesty exposed and punished" would really help people who have decided to "bet on honesty." Exposes, scandals, etc.
> - Strategic actors who are not honest are not rational, not behaving optimally, and not competitive, in general, compared to those are honest, as of now.
> - A good date to predict: When will the entire country of the USA get the message: Honesty is rational, lying has caused repeated calamities for those who do it?
> - When that happens in public, in the news--and those investors who aren't con artists would be wise to try to make it happen, even just for money--I would bet 75% of Americans will get rational.
> - I think you would argue: If 75% of American actors--businesses, which have money as the fuel of business and their assets, and their assets--become rational, bad lying will essentially stop.
> - When that happens, or is seen to definitely be about to happen, I'm sure to be released by the CIA--when it is definitely clear how it will go, they'll stop out of fear, at least.
>
> So a key fact is: Media activity that aids dishonest important-to-be-stopped endeavors is destructive to the economy and should be punished. Activity that helps to expose dishonesty and reward more honest behavior is worthy of being incentivized. The economy is already moving in that direction, so supporting that activity is healthy for the economy and efforts to support honesty. I say: It is a very good investment to support honesty and oppose dishonest conduct right now; I predict that the economy will pay big, good dividends in a sense to those who support it now, even if that isn't clear without an understanding of my posts and the math behind them.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)


Click here to read the complete article
Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.

<27a588e3-3274-45d3-bde7-fbe96b8256ecn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32941&group=comp.theory#32941

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:40e:b0:2f3:db3b:7d4d with SMTP id n14-20020a05622a040e00b002f3db3b7d4dmr16847573qtx.655.1653321365218;
Mon, 23 May 2022 08:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:443:b0:2fe:eefc:1ad5 with SMTP id
bj3-20020a05690c044300b002feeefc1ad5mr23809768ywb.199.1653321365031; Mon, 23
May 2022 08:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 08:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <019d1558-6e80-45df-a6a2-71ec72feaff7n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.53.104.152; posting-account=X_pe-goAAACrVTtZeoCLt7hslVPY2-Uo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.53.104.152
References: <30732749-83bb-4232-92e0-c2cefae43ed8n@googlegroups.com>
<a4e19e65-8ea9-4d66-8981-e4d298a7bd7an@googlegroups.com> <b4313c3c-ec1e-41b7-9525-1f8d0dc340ean@googlegroups.com>
<566a831f-0d8b-498e-9ec3-29ddc4d5f70fn@googlegroups.com> <906c5f49-29de-4834-92c3-6ab9980d9eb6n@googlegroups.com>
<acf710e4-e2f7-42af-a044-39e8843b8687n@googlegroups.com> <019d1558-6e80-45df-a6a2-71ec72feaff7n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <27a588e3-3274-45d3-bde7-fbe96b8256ecn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.
From: xlt....@gmail.com (B.H.)
Injection-Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 15:56:05 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 30795
 by: B.H. - Mon, 23 May 2022 15:56 UTC

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:05 AM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:38:30 AM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 4:59:33 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:30:04 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:28:25 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:08:38 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:02:09 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here is something pasted from my Facebook, which I'll delete later:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - - -
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OK, I'm on it: I decided to prove a full "honesty theorem" about incomplete information game theory pretty soon...I will define: "a certain type of process," "rationality," "regular large games," and other concepts in the proof. It might involve a formula, that relates a level (??) of rationality (percentage of actors who act rationally?), to the number or percentage of rational actors, and the number of people/actors present in the game, and certain quantifiable metrics about the game (or subgame) that render it about conventional strategic action on Earth in modern times, to the extent of importance of not presenting "bad photographs" in such games, quantified in some way.
> > > > > > > I'll start working on it tomorrow I think! The publication should be impactful because the result will be indisputable, and people will probably act differently based on the principle, i.e., more honest typically. That fact, and this publication, should push people to being more honest or more in trouble for lying, starting right now!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - - -
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here are some initial thoughts on the theorem, you can prove it yourself, I'm not getting paid for this, so I might as well just toss some stuff out there and let some other people prove it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - A process of a person is "rational" if it is a TM that "is good at getting the person a good expected value of utility points from gems," i.e., given input in the form of details about the strategic environment, and how the person will react to any strategic environment it can perceive, via photos and first-hand experience, the TM will output a strategic move for it to make, perhaps randomized with a probability.
> > > > > > > - A TM process for a person is rational if there is no "obvious improvement" to a better TM, perhaps via annealing or a well-known and published "stock process" that would improve the TM.
> > > > > > > - One way to read the person's process is as having 5 components: gem-seeking routine, ally-support routine, security maintenance routine, photograph (info) seeking routine, and miscellaneous/supervisory routine--which is like int main() and calls the routines and does other behaviors. There could be good published "stock routines" for each of the five tasks, considered individually without knowing the other 4.
> > > > > > > - Let's say: A full strategy algorithm for a strategic actor is "rational" if there is no "easily found" other strategic algorithm that would get the strategic 25% more expected utility points from gems, without a 25% percent risk of losing 25% of utility points from using the alternate strategy.
> > > > > > > - The key actions in a strategy--the strategic moves--are: weapon deployments, movements around the grid (horizontal and vertical, I would assume), picking up and dropping weapons/photos/gems, choosing to utilize teleportation portals, and choosing to draw and/or claim to defend lines.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A key consequence: Publishing strategic principle is a valuable way to improve rationality globally. The publication of strategic, game-theoretic algorithms like the ones described is very important. Actually, that is one very strong argument for why research publication suppression is so extremely lethal and toxic to society, and why academics who tolerate it must be punished; academics are responsible for research publication, and if they don't prioritize making it happen, they are literally quietly causing lots of people's deaths. Academic journals can offer a guarantee of correctness that I cannot offer on Usenet. That is why trust failures are so disastrous.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > > > One thing I forgot:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - A TM process is rational if and only if we restrict attention, for 75% of other actors in the game, globally, to such actors that themselves play rational strategies. Thus, the concept of rationality evolves and can be political; the published strategic literature can influence what is considered to be "rational," since sometimes, what is rational changes if you as a strategic actor learn new things about rationality and strategy improvements, and are sure that many other human beings in the "game" are learning these lessons and changing the "public notion" of what rationality is, too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In a way, I once again cement my position as "the world's most powerful person," because as the only person in the world who will write about this subject on the internet (or in the media), I am 100% in control of the definition and nature of rationality. As long as this situation continues, I and I alone am the sole determiner of what "rationality in the modern" age is defined to be, since I will remain the only publisher of strategic ideas in the world until I am released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is another great reason for even my most entrenched detractors to concede that I should be released. Now that I think of this, I will still publish my physics thing on May 31, and then switch to periodic strategy publications.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How powerless and ruined do you want to be? Do you really want to end my career and my personal life that much, guys? I don't want to do this, but if I must, it's guaranteed to cost you everything, power-wise; I will be the only who speaks and publishes clearly about this subject. I will be the loudest one, and control the world's understanding of strategy until you cut it out, turn eleven, and advocate for my release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > > I think I realized what I can do to get out:
> > > > >
> > > > > Basically, if I publish nothing, the economy will be devastated, because the economic models will have to assume that people are very irrational--very naive in terms of their processes. People could also be smarter, but we have a very loose definition of rationality.
> > > > >
> > > > > The result is, until I publish something, the GDP will plummet and the US will fall into a recession. I would like to reiterate that I did nothing illegal, and am not required to publish "econ upgrades."
> > > > >
> > > > > I could, if I were released by May 30, but I don't have to.
> > > > >
> > > > > So my plan is to just not publish any "strategic helpful upgrades," which limits the GDP tremendously, given the presence of my new and better economic model. People can be left to guess what processes might be at "the most naive level." Or, I could be emailed and asked for advice. Otherwise, you're headed for a big recession, and it wasn't my fault.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe I will skip the May 31 disclosure, since I now realize that the US economy will get hard enough for improperly hurting me anyway. I can be glad that the evil and intransigent Obama/Bush/Biden/Clinton/Trump team just set themselves up for a disaster. They ruined everything by attacking me, and I can be pleased with that.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want the economy back, advocate for having me liberated. Enslaving me, and ripping out of my position at NSA, was not wise or healthy for the country; give me my life back and I'll be able to help the US instead of righteously damaging its economy, as a sort of lawsuit-substitute, as I had originally planned.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > I said "will get ruined enough."
> > > >
> > > > I'll spare the CIA the 0 during this difficult time, for them.
> > > I have another really good supplementary idea to add to this:
> > >
> > > A good thing that some people could build: An "economy-friendly behavior incentivization program." If you wanted to help the economy and benefit from it, one thing you could do is you could build an algorithm that tracks, e.g., social networking sites, and identifies positive US-economy-supporting behavior on the sites--e.g., someone who always tells the truth and provides good innovative ideas would be seen as "friendly to the economy." The next step would be: Provide a small perk for, e.g., arrange for a big-deal person or organization to find out about: the meeting of a small group of economy-friendly people, e.g., by all becoming friends on Facebook. If small teams of people who share a track record of benevolent support for the economy were to come together, these teams getting an incentive would encourage this kind of collaborative meeting and also positive-for-the-economy behaviors that could make such meetings possible. The perk of getting a good like and some attention from, e.g., a big firm, could make that kind of thing happen more often.
> > >
> > > Actually, building an AI like that and posting about it on your social networking page could get you "positive benefits" for that action, too, since you'd be identified by good AI's as helping the economy yourself.
> > >
> > > This post will likely accelerate my momentum towards release, since it provides a way for people to enforce "pro-economy behaviors," like policing those who lie. People should expect dishonesty about important matters to get punished with a high price pretty soon, based on my recent posts providing ideas on how to impact that kind of behavior.
> > >
> > > I should never have been targeted for this! What an idiotic mistake!
> > >
> > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > I've spent a little time trying to calculate when I'll be released based on these ideas. Here are a few comments:
> >
> > - Right now, the definition of "rational behavior" for those who have read my posts, definitely includes: Don't lie about anything important, including in code.
> > - A key question to consider: When will 75% of American strategic actors have learned to behave rationally in this way, whether they've seen my posts or not?
> > - One good strategy is: Show people, empirically, including via news events, that "honest people are winning these days," and thus honesty in business is rational.
> > - I would imagine that "big incidents of dishonesty exposed and punished" would really help people who have decided to "bet on honesty." Exposes, scandals, etc.
> > - Strategic actors who are not honest are not rational, not behaving optimally, and not competitive, in general, compared to those are honest, as of now.
> > - A good date to predict: When will the entire country of the USA get the message: Honesty is rational, lying has caused repeated calamities for those who do it?
> > - When that happens in public, in the news--and those investors who aren't con artists would be wise to try to make it happen, even just for money--I would bet 75% of Americans will get rational.
> > - I think you would argue: If 75% of American actors--businesses, which have money as the fuel of business and their assets, and their assets--become rational, bad lying will essentially stop.
> > - When that happens, or is seen to definitely be about to happen, I'm sure to be released by the CIA--when it is definitely clear how it will go, they'll stop out of fear, at least.
> > So a key fact is: Media activity that aids dishonest important-to-be-stopped endeavors is destruOn Friday, May 20, 2022 at 4:59:33 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:30:04 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:28:25 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:08:38 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 6:02:09 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here is something pasted from my Facebook, which I'll delete later:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - - -
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OK, I'm on it: I decided to prove a full "honesty theorem" about incomplete information game theory pretty soon...I will define: "a certain type of process," "rationality," "regular large games," and other concepts in the proof. It might involve a formula, that relates a level (??) of rationality (percentage of actors who act rationally?), to the number or percentage of rational actors, and the number of people/actors present in the game, and certain quantifiable metrics about the game (or subgame) that render it about conventional strategic action on Earth in modern times, to the extent of importance of not presenting "bad photographs" in such games, quantified in some way.
> > > > > > > I'll start working on it tomorrow I think! The publication should be impactful because the result will be indisputable, and people will probably act differently based on the principle, i.e., more honest typically. That fact, and this publication, should push people to being more honest or more in trouble for lying, starting right now!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - - -
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here are some initial thoughts on the theorem, you can prove it yourself, I'm not getting paid for this, so I might as well just toss some stuff out there and let some other people prove it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - A process of a person is "rational" if it is a TM that "is good at getting the person a good expected value of utility points from gems," i.e., given input in the form of details about the strategic environment, and how the person will react to any strategic environment it can perceive, via photos and first-hand experience, the TM will output a strategic move for it to make, perhaps randomized with a probability.
> > > > > > > - A TM process for a person is rational if there is no "obvious improvement" to a better TM, perhaps via annealing or a well-known and published "stock process" that would improve the TM.
> > > > > > > - One way to read the person's process is as having 5 components: gem-seeking routine, ally-support routine, security maintenance routine, photograph (info) seeking routine, and miscellaneous/supervisory routine--which is like int main() and calls the routines and does other behaviors. There could be good published "stock routines" for each of the five tasks, considered individually without knowing the other 4.
> > > > > > > - Let's say: A full strategy algorithm for a strategic actor is "rational" if there is no "easily found" other strategic algorithm that would get the strategic 25% more expected utility points from gems, without a 25% percent risk of losing 25% of utility points from using the alternate strategy.
> > > > > > > - The key actions in a strategy--the strategic moves--are: weapon deployments, movements around the grid (horizontal and vertical, I would assume), picking up and dropping weapons/photos/gems, choosing to utilize teleportation portals, and choosing to draw and/or claim to defend lines.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A key consequence: Publishing strategic principle is a valuable way to improve rationality globally. The publication of strategic, game-theoretic algorithms like the ones described is very important. Actually, that is one very strong argument for why research publication suppression is so extremely lethal and toxic to society, and why academics who tolerate it must be punished; academics are responsible for research publication, and if they don't prioritize making it happen, they are literally quietly causing lots of people's deaths. Academic journals can offer a guarantee of correctness that I cannot offer on Usenet. That is why trust failures are so disastrous.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > > > One thing I forgot:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - A TM process is rational if and only if we restrict attention, for 75% of other actors in the game, globally, to such actors that themselves play rational strategies. Thus, the concept of rationality evolves and can be political; the published strategic literature can influence what is considered to be "rational," since sometimes, what is rational changes if you as a strategic actor learn new things about rationality and strategy improvements, and are sure that many other human beings in the "game" are learning these lessons and changing the "public notion" of what rationality is, too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In a way, I once again cement my position as "the world's most powerful person," because as the only person in the world who will write about this subject on the internet (or in the media), I am 100% in control of the definition and nature of rationality. As long as this situation continues, I and I alone am the sole determiner of what "rationality in the modern" age is defined to be, since I will remain the only publisher of strategic ideas in the world until I am released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is another great reason for even my most entrenched detractors to concede that I should be released. Now that I think of this, I will still publish my physics thing on May 31, and then switch to periodic strategy publications.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How powerless and ruined do you want to be? Do you really want to end my career and my personal life that much, guys? I don't want to do this, but if I must, it's guaranteed to cost you everything, power-wise; I will be the only who speaks and publishes clearly about this subject. I will be the loudest one, and control the world's understanding of strategy until you cut it out, turn eleven, and advocate for my release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > > I think I realized what I can do to get out:
> > > > >
> > > > > Basically, if I publish nothing, the economy will be devastated, because the economic models will have to assume that people are very irrational--very naive in terms of their processes. People could also be smarter, but we have a very loose definition of rationality.
> > > > >
> > > > > The result is, until I publish something, the GDP will plummet and the US will fall into a recession. I would like to reiterate that I did nothing illegal, and am not required to publish "econ upgrades."
> > > > >
> > > > > I could, if I were released by May 30, but I don't have to.
> > > > >
> > > > > So my plan is to just not publish any "strategic helpful upgrades," which limits the GDP tremendously, given the presence of my new and better economic model. People can be left to guess what processes might be at "the most naive level." Or, I could be emailed and asked for advice. Otherwise, you're headed for a big recession, and it wasn't my fault.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe I will skip the May 31 disclosure, since I now realize that the US economy will get hard enough for improperly hurting me anyway. I can be glad that the evil and intransigent Obama/Bush/Biden/Clinton/Trump team just set themselves up for a disaster. They ruined everything by attacking me, and I can be pleased with that.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want the economy back, advocate for having me liberated. Enslaving me, and ripping out of my position at NSA, was not wise or healthy for the country; give me my life back and I'll be able to help the US instead of righteously damaging its economy, as a sort of lawsuit-substitute, as I had originally planned.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > I said "will get ruined enough."
> > > >
> > > > I'll spare the CIA the 0 during this difficult time, for them.
> > > I have another really good supplementary idea to add to this:
> > >
> > > A good thing that some people could build: An "economy-friendly behavior incentivization program." If you wanted to help the economy and benefit from it, one thing you could do is you could build an algorithm that tracks, e.g., social networking sites, and identifies positive US-economy-supporting behavior on the sites--e.g., someone who always tells the truth and provides good innovative ideas would be seen as "friendly to the economy." The next step would be: Provide a small perk for, e.g., arrange for a big-deal person or organization to find out about: the meeting of a small group of economy-friendly people, e.g., by all becoming friends on Facebook. If small teams of people who share a track record of benevolent support for the economy were to come together, these teams getting an incentive would encourage this kind of collaborative meeting and also positive-for-the-economy behaviors that could make such meetings possible. The perk of getting a good like and some attention from, e.g., a big firm, could make that kind of thing happen more often.
> > >
> > > Actually, building an AI like that and posting about it on your social networking page could get you "positive benefits" for that action, too, since you'd be identified by good AI's as helping the economy yourself.
> > >
> > > This post will likely accelerate my momentum towards release, since it provides a way for people to enforce "pro-economy behaviors," like policing those who lie. People should expect dishonesty about important matters to get punished with a high price pretty soon, based on my recent posts providing ideas on how to impact that kind of behavior.
> > >
> > > I should never have been targeted for this! What an idiotic mistake!
> > >
> > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > I've spent a little time trying to calculate when I'll be released based on these ideas. Here are a few comments:
> >
> > - Right now, the definition of "rational behavior" for those who have read my posts, definitely includes: Don't lie about anything important, including in code.
> > - A key question to consider: When will 75% of American strategic actors have learned to behave rationally in this way, whether they've seen my posts or not?
> > - One good strategy is: Show people, empirically, including via news events, that "honest people are winning these days," and thus honesty in business is rational.
> > - I would imagine that "big incidents of dishonesty exposed and punished" would really help people who have decided to "bet on honesty." Exposes, scandals, etc.
> > - Strategic actors who are not honest are not rational, not behaving optimally, and not competitive, in general, compared to those are honest, as of now.
> > - A good date to predict: When will the entire country of the USA get the message: Honesty is rational, lying has caused repeated calamities for those who do it?
> > - When that happens in public, in the news--and those investors who aren't con artists would be wise to try to make it happen, even just for money--I would bet 75% of Americans will get rational.
> > - I think you would argue: If 75% of American actors--businesses, which have money as the fuel of business and their assets, and their assets--become rational, bad lying will essentially stop.
> > - When that happens, or is seen to definitely be about to happen, I'm sure to be released by the CIA--when it is definitely clear how it will go, they'll stop out of fear, at least.
> >
> > So a key fact is: Media activity that aids dishonest important-to-be-stopped endeavors is destructive to the economy and should be punished. Activity that helps to expose dishonesty and reward more honest behavior is worthy of being incentivized. The economy is already moving in that direction, so supporting that activity is healthy for the economy and efforts to support honesty. I say: It is a very good investment to support honesty and oppose dishonest conduct right now; I predict that the economy will pay big, good dividends in a sense to those who support it now, even if that isn't clear without an understanding of my posts and the math behind them.
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> If you can claim credit for aiding honesty, and opposing dishonesty, on the internet, I would bet eventually someone will write software crediting and rewarding you, perhaps financially, for having done so, sometime in the fairly near future. The trend is already essentially unstoppable; the goal worthy of being rewarded is speeding it up. The dishonesty supporters who want to save big lying are going to flail around and try to stop the mathematically modelable move, but they will fail unless they can speak out, in English, to modify the definition of rationality by supplying good processes of their own. Pelosi would have to essentially share source code with body language, and the problem for her is, the process isn't part of the definition of rationality if it does not get supplied clearly to every actor. My "process-type to use" demands only: Be honest, and I've supplied powerful mathematical arguments, theoretically viewable to all, that my ideas will provably work. So I will win.
>
> -Philip White


Click here to read the complete article
1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor