Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The genius of John von Neumann

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 125 posts

Re: The genius of John von Neumann

#61

Post by bryan0 »

photochemsyn wrote: post #5

You could write another article entitled 'the lunacy of John von Neumann' over his endless pushes for destroying every major city in the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons, too. A brilliant scientist, yes, but also an unhinged lunatic. Not an unusual situation, see Cantor etc. What's curious is how many hagiographies have been written about this individual - some people seem bent on rehabilitating this figure by erasi…

Imagine if every time a story came up about a once-in-a-generation brilliant innovator, the top comments were all about highlighting their flaws and mistakes and minimizing their accomplishments. What a depressing way to live.

Re: The genius of John von Neumann

#62

Post by Imnimo »

friedman23 wrote: post #36
DantesKite wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An intellectual-yet-idiot who placed too much hope and emphasis on game theory, despite the fact that it only works when agents are perfectly rational.

If you are executing the nash equilibrium strategy, if your opponent deviates from the strategy you win by default.

Consider the following game matrix, in which you pick a row and your opponent picks a column, and you receive the first payoff and your opponent receives the second.

(100,100) (-100,99)

(99,99) (98,98)

The Nash equilibrium strategy is that you pick row 1 and your opponent picks column 1, each receiving 100 points. Once in this state, neither of you can improve by unilaterally changing your strategy. However, if your opponent irrationally deviates and takes column 2, receiving 99 instead of 100, you will get the catastrophic -100 payoff.

Re: The genius of John von Neumann

#63

Post by badRNG »

tuesdayrain wrote: post #56
badRNG wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you've done is restate the original claim without providing evidence that intelligence "doesn't match up" (as you claim) across ethnicities. Generally when pressed, folks who dress up their racism in pseudoscientific language rely on the same small handful of talking points which largely haven't changed since "scientific racism" was mainstream in the 19th century. This started with phrenology, a widespread mainst…

James Watson had evidence on the subject, he was stripped of his titles and harassed by ideologues who are convinced everyone should be exactly equal. Scientists have realized it's not worth it to sacrifice their career when the general public simply isn't interested in knowing things that might be considered racist.

James Watson made many unfounded racist claims that have been completely discredited.

The rhetoric surrounding racist pseudoscience mirrors that of the anti-vaccine and climate change denial movements. They point to a discredited "anti-vaxx" doctor or a discredited "climate change denying" researcher and view the criticism of their work as censorship, rather than as a sign they might not be a credible source.

Re: The genius of John von Neumann

#64

Post by vishho »

triclops200 wrote: post #10
jgmmo wrote: post #7

I have had this great book for 10+ years, and still find it fascinating it's called "Prisoner's Dilemma: John von Neumann, Game Theory, and the Puzzle of the Bomb". I try to re-read it on occasion. It's half John von Neumann biography and half subject matter history. Call him an unhinged lunatic if you want photochemsyn; but I consider him a super genius. Link: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29506.Prisoner_s_Dil…

He was a super genius. Just a super genius who repeatedly called for genocide and nuclear first strikes. He was removed from the target selection committee for the Japan bombings because he kept advocating for high civilian targets with no military value and even the generals at the table viewed him as crazy. The ability to be a genius and a lunatic aren't mutually exclusive and the recent efforts to build a hagiogra…

A first strike is not lunacy. It is a rational decision, if the nuclear arms race is viewed under game theory.

He was a consultant, not had his hand on the button. The people with the hand on the button were talking about the rising threat and how to deal with it in the future. Neumann rightly reasoned that if there ever came a conflict, the winning move would have been an early first strike.

If you look at his statements, these are statements of mathematical fact, not political strategy.

If anything, he showed the hypocracy of target selection and its justifications for war. You want to play to win, or worry about rules and perceptions, unsure of if your opponent employs similarly intelligent analysts and game theorists?

Look at the target selection of American adversaries in their information warfare. Made by lunatics? Or made to win a shadow war and damage American culture and politics without regard to military status?

Re: The genius of John von Neumann

#65

Post by khafra »

sugarpile wrote: post #17
Smoofer wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good thing we were able to avoid billions of deaths without nuking every major USSR city?

And should nuclear war ever occur? ~70 years is a relatively short time frame. Check back with me in another 200 and let me know if your comment still holds.

Is your theory that nuking the USSR would have completely prevented nuclear proliferation for at least two centuries? That no other nation would have developed nukes in secret, or stolen some from the USA? Or is your theory that nuking China, India, Pakistan, France, Israel, etc., as soon as they started to get nuclear weapons would still be worth it?

If you're saying global thermonuclear war is a bigger risk than we tend to think, e.g. because of anthropic shadow effects, I agree. But I still don't think there's positive expected value in a pre-emptive all-out nuclear attack.

Re: The genius of John von Neumann

#66

Post by davemp »

mathieubordere wrote: post #22
dhanna wrote: post #4

I don’t need another biography/blog post fawning about John von Neumann, I need this goddamn series reprinted https://www.amazon.com/John-Von-Neumann-Collected-Works/dp/0... .

oh god, another one to put on the wishlist

Wow that collection must be rare. The only complete listing on ebay is $2.5k and not in good condition. Talk about show off books.

Re: The genius of John von Neumann

#67

Post by rileymat2 »

friedman23 wrote: post #36
DantesKite wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An intellectual-yet-idiot who placed too much hope and emphasis on game theory, despite the fact that it only works when agents are perfectly rational.

If you are executing the nash equilibrium strategy, if your opponent deviates from the strategy you win by default.

I don’t think this is quite right, it requires the opponent to use the optimal strategy.

Re: The genius of John von Neumann

#68

Post by bavent »

dhanna wrote: post #4

I don’t need another biography/blog post fawning about John von Neumann, I need this goddamn series reprinted https://www.amazon.com/John-Von-Neumann-Collected-Works/dp/0... .

At this point we need a weekly John von Neumann thread.

Re: The genius of John von Neumann

#70

Post by [deleted] »

hirundo wrote: post #21

"It’s fashionable to say that intelligence isn’t real, or that we can’t define it, or that it’s a Western colonial construct. But the word points to a real thing: there is some quality which rocks don’t have, and which mice have a bit of, and which chimpanzees have more of, and humans have a lot of; and which is something like problem-solving ability or ability to achieve goals." We have IQ for measuring problem-solv…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN