Cool, I read a bit of the rulebook and it seemed neat!
Possibly worth noting: I linked this post in a local SSC/ACX chat and one of the reactions that I got was:
I got a mild skeptical distaste reaction because they put the “this is useful for AI safety redteaming” aspect on the forefront, instead of *fun*.
And I have to admit that I did also have a bit of the same reaction when I first read the post; the phrasing was the kind that I associate with awful political art, giving me a prior expectation of “this probably isn’t very good”. Reading the beginning of the rulebook changed my mind, but some people might never get that far.
Thanks! Duly noted, thanks for the feedback. I agree that political art is typically awful. FWIW, The Treacherous Turn was approximately 100% optimized to be fun. We all knew from the beginning that it wouldn’t be useful if it wasn’t fun. We did put some thought into making it realistic, but the realism IMO adds to the fun rather than subtracts; I would still have included it even if I didn’t care about impact at all.
Cool, I read a bit of the rulebook and it seemed neat!
Possibly worth noting: I linked this post in a local SSC/ACX chat and one of the reactions that I got was:
And I have to admit that I did also have a bit of the same reaction when I first read the post; the phrasing was the kind that I associate with awful political art, giving me a prior expectation of “this probably isn’t very good”. Reading the beginning of the rulebook changed my mind, but some people might never get that far.
Thanks! Duly noted, thanks for the feedback. I agree that political art is typically awful. FWIW, The Treacherous Turn was approximately 100% optimized to be fun. We all knew from the beginning that it wouldn’t be useful if it wasn’t fun. We did put some thought into making it realistic, but the realism IMO adds to the fun rather than subtracts; I would still have included it even if I didn’t care about impact at all.