flâneur

Poker is a bad game for teaching epistemics. Figgie is a better one. — LessWrong

lesswrong.com · 10,580 words · saved by 1 readers

Editor's note: Somewhat after I posted this on my own blog, Max Chiswick cornered me at LessOnline / Manifest and gave me a whole new perspective on this topic. I now believe that there is a way to use poker to sharpen epistemics that works dramatically better than anything I had been considering. I hope to write it up—together with Max—when I have time. Anyway, I'm still happy to keep this post around as a record of my first thoughts on the matter, and because it's better than nothing in the time before Max and I get around to writing up our joint second thoughts. As an epilogue to this story, Max and I are now running a beta test for a course on making AIs to play poker and other games. The course will a synthesis of our respective theories of pedagogy re: games, and you can read more here or in the comments. The beta will run July 15-August 15, in-person in SF, and will be free but with limited signups has gone to waitlist-only. We're hoping to run additional iterations in-person in

x Poker is a bad game for teaching epistemics. Figgie is a better one. — LessWrong Distillation & Pedagogy Skill Building Rationality Curated 106 Poker is a bad game for teaching epistemics. Figgie is a better one. by rossry 8th Jul 2024 Linkpost for blog.rossry.net 13 min read 47 106 Editor's note: Somewhat after I posted this on my own blog, Max Chiswick cornered me at LessOnline / Manifest and gave me a whole new perspective on this topic. I now believe that there is a way to use poker to sharpen epistemics that works dramatically better than anything I had been considering. I hope to write

saved by

related reading