This is the artificial intelligence voice of Konstantin Kisin narrating this pod slice summary of the Triggernometry Podcast.

This section of the Triggernometry Podcast extensively explores the influence and impact of media and information on societal behavior, driven by the dynamics of competition and polarization. In this discussion, Liv Boeree draws a parallel between media systems and the concept of ‘Moloch’, an ancient deity to which people made significant sacrifices for victories in wars. She notes this concept was modernized into game theory terms by Scott Alexander in 2014 to explain the motivations behind many world problems.

Boeree describes ‘Moloch’ as the force that arises from the exploitation of misaligned incentives. Essentially, it recognizes rational individual actions that, when universally adopted, lead to undesirable collective outcomes. For instance, companies frequently resort to cost-effective solutions like cheap plastic packaging that disproportionally harms the environment. Similarly, the arms race led by individual nations amassing nuclear weapons results in a more insecure world. These actions reflect short-term gains at the cost of long-term consequences, a manifestation of the ‘Moloch’ mechanism.

This mechanism is also evident in the media landscape. Digital media outlets increasingly employ controversial, clickbaity, and rage-inducing tactics to maintain a competitive edge. While these strategies boost reader engagement and shareability, they contribute to escalating polarization and enmity in societies. Therefore, Boeree emphasizes recognizing this underlying ‘Moloch’ force to address and resolve detrimental elements within media practices.

She warns that this attention-centered game being played by media organizations, influencers, and other entities, including non-profits and governments, is founded on virality-inducing emotions, primarily rage and fear. Therefore, the incentive structure centered around these emotions intensifies polarization, leading to a disjointed societal fabric.

Moreover, Boeree notes the challenge of managing global concerns, such as climate change or pandemics, due to these operating on ‘Moloch’ dynamics. She suggests that coordinated global actions are necessary to address these challenges effectively but often thwarted by individual or national short-term priorities. Her concern is that the public’s trust in media has been eroded due to the prevalence of hyperbole and sensationalism, inhibiting reliable information access and thus mutual understanding and cooperation on critical issues.

Liv Boeree underscores the pressing need for a shared understanding of reality, noting that the media’s central role should ideally be to inform the public. She voices her concern over media’s transition into a form of entertainment, a tool to incite emotional reactions rather than encourage informed discussions and insight on issues.

In this media scape, divisive topics such as the transgender debate become disproportionately prominent due to their potential to sensitize audiences. The controversial nature of these issues, coupled with conflicting perspectives, generates tension and discussion, striving for attention and reader engagement in a highly competitive media environment.

Boeree voices her belief in the foundational concepts of biology and individual freedom of expression. She admits the tension resulting from discrepancies between these principles. She observes that media outlets have capitalized on controversial issues like the transgender debate, amplifying the division and tension for viral potential and increased engagement rather than fostering constructive discussion.

The issue of truth emerges as a resonating theme, hinting at concerns about disinformation and misinformation. This inability to agree on basic truths complicates the addressing and resolution of critical issues. However, Boeree remarks that it’s not just about the corporations or organizations and their influence. Individuals still retain agency and are responsible for filtering the information they consume.

She cites Patrick Ryan’s concept of ‘Psycho Security,’ the protection from manipulation tools rampant on the internet. As our interactions with technology evolve, Boeree stresses the importance of building psychological defenses against external influences, be it manipulation from social media platforms or the divisive nature of mainstream media.

Furthermore, she expresses concern over the role of artificial intelligence (AI). While AI has its benefits, Boeree points out that it can exacerbate existing problems. Particularly in the media industry, AI’s power to personalize content can heighten emotional reactions and drive further division within society. This personalized AI can potentially be implemented by polarized news outlets to incense their audience, intensifying existing societal divisions.

In this engaging discourse, Boeree addresses AI’s contested terrain, fear, fascination, and potential from a pragmatic perspective. The sweeping capabilities of AI, she opines, extend from the benign, such as Google Maps, to what she labels “Frontier models.” These are potent AI systems on the leading edge of development, capable of remolding our reality in hitherto unseen ways. Boeree reiterates the vital need for regulation, particularly for frontier models, given their capacity for far-reaching consequences in the information ecosystem and the economy.

AI, she suggests, is running real-time experiments on humanity, the repercussions of which may not manifest until it’s too late, emphasizing the complex tapestry of ‘unintended consequences’. She strikes an ominous chord, warning us about AI systems that could potentially evolve themselves at a rate outpacing biological evolution. Besides the risks these present, Boeree also acknowledges certain benefits. AI can aid in resolving issues related to environmental conservation, nuclear fusion and drug discovery.

Despite these positive potentialities, Boeree leans towards caution, especially where powerful AI technology could fall into the wrong hands. This is compounded by structural risks such as mass unemployment, a result of AI ubiquity. However, she acknowledges the dual-use nature of AI, emphasizing its potential to be used for good and bad. In the grand scheme, AI could help humanity to better coordinate and navigate solutions to formidable problems like climate change without falling into situations of global tyranny.

Konstantin Kisin raises the point of countries investing in AI development as a strategic necessity, another angle contributing to the urgency of this multi-layered discussion. After this, they shift to how Boeree transitioned from studying astrophysics to becoming a professional poker player, a twist from the world of AI, anchoring back to her experiences and the underlying strategies that have informed her journey.

The deep distillation of the game of poker and its parallels to real-life situations makes up a large chunk of the conversation between Konstantin Kisin and Liv Boeree. Known as “The Professor”, Boeree began her love affair with poker after participating on a show that used the game as a means of delving into varying personality types. Her attraction to the game was a blend of strategy, skill, and psychology, rather than a thirst for winning per se.

A meaningful portion of the conversation focuses on the blend of luck and strategy inherent in poker. Boeree asserts that luck prominently directs short run outcomes, but as the duration of play lengthens, the role of strategy becomes increasingly important. She references the current best player in the world – an AI that excels due to its superior mathematic computing capabilities – devoid of any human emotion.

An insightful thread that weaves its way through the discussion is how the game has evolved from being perceived as an art to being treated as a science. Earlier players relied heavily on intuitive judgement and gut instincts, but as online poker became mainstream and data crept into the equation, the game transformed into a subject of mathematical and scientific scrutiny. Today’s top players typically employ a combination of math, game theory, and human behaviour analytics to pocket the win.

Boeree’s analytical mindset extends beyond poker into everyday life scenarios. She discusses how an understanding of the game can help people become used to uncertainty and interpret things with a probabilistic lens. This allows for a more strategic approach in navigating life situations – from figuring out parking dilemmash to evaluating the veracity of news. She highlights the valuable skillset of living with a grayscale, of not being confined to the binary choices of black and white. Her comfort with interpreting situations with a probabilistic perspective symbolizes ‘living with uncertainty’, a view she suggests could beneficially translate to broader society, and not just poker players.

The discussion continues with an exploration of the role of luck and randomness in poker and life. Boeree herself admits to having been “fooled by randomness” when she won a large poker tournament early in her career and subsequently let her winning streak inflate her ego. This resulted in her underestimating the role of luck in her big win.

Continuing on the intriguing corollaries between poker and real-life, Boeree talks extensively about intuition. While intuition can certainly be a player’s ally during gameplay, Boeree cautions against relying on it too heavily. This comes from her own observation that individuals often use their intuition as an excuse to avoid what she terms “boring number crunching”. Reflecting on her years of poker-playing, she notes that even her gut instinct was typically flawed during the first decade.

The conversation then elucidates the importance of self-examination and self-honesty, essentially being ‘epistemically humble’. Boeree suggests that focusing on finding and improving the process, rather than obsessing about the results, serves as the benchmark for growth in poker. As a parallel in life, it lets one identify where biases and emotions might distort rational thinking.

The discussion further ventures into matters of stress and emotional responses in high-pressure situations, often seen on the poker table and in public speaking events. Boeree stresses on the importance of experiencing these situations, allowing oneself to get used to the stress and emotionally intense environment, and learning acceptance. This develops a sort of resilience against stress and anxiety, making one better equipped to handle them in the long run.

The conversation takes an interesting twist when Boeree shares about her biggest win at 25 – 1.25 million euros. The exhilarating rush of winning and unexpected fame revealed to her the heights of dopamine spikes, but also the crash that comes after. This led her to eventually leave the game, citing the increasing difficulty level because of AI intervention, democratization of strategic information making average players better, and her need for more positive, win-win scenarios in her life, rather than the zero-sum game that poker inherently is.

Boeree is not only a retired professional poker player but also a committed content creator. She believes passionately in the content she’s crafting, particularly content that unravels ‘shitty Game Theory’: the failure of competition in our society, and aims to steer more people towards thinking about and generating solutions for it. A significant part of her current endeavours revolves around finding ‘win-win’ scenarios in situations where there appear to be none, thus playing on the title of her newly launched podcast, “Win-Win”.

Continuing the dialogue about societal issues, Boeree speaks on the topic that she thinks is grossly overlooked – what she refers to as ‘Moloch’ or multi-polar traps. These traps arise from short-term incentives that are not in alignment with the world’s needs, leading to harmful races to the bottom within industries. Boeree emphasizes the importance of concentrating on these meta-level concerns rather than individuals or singular events. In other words, according to her, we need to focus less on targeting the players and more on reforming the ‘game’, which is the fundamental structure of these systems.

Responding to the host’s query about why women underperform in poker compared to men, Boeree does not give a definitive answer. However, she indicates her openness to discuss this topic further, suggesting there may be numerous factors responsible for this disparity. The segment concludes with a musical interlude, and the promise of an ongoing conversation exploring more issues and questions.