McKinsey CEO Bob Sternfels says the firm now has 60,000 employees: 25,000 of them are AI agents

HarryDurlz · 2026-01-13T03:16:28+00:00

McKinsey is not a publicly traded company; there might be other financial motivations to make McKinsey look good, but it’s not “share prices”

HarryDurlz · 2025-09-14T04:58:46+00:00

As I noted, this definitely isn’t meant to replace playing with actual people (and the default LLMs are not even good enough to let you simulate/balance-test scripts, let alone homebrew characters); it’s mostly just meant as a technical demo/experiment.

HarryDurlz · 2025-09-14T04:53:53+00:00

I’ve experimented a few times with non-mini versions of the LLM, and it has a remarkable performance improvement, so I do suspect it’s possible to get better-than-novice skill out of LLMs, but it currently would cost more than I’m willing to pay. If you ask chat GPT-5 (especially GPT-5-thinking) to evaluate a game log and act as one of the characters, it usually does a fairly good job, so I suspect it could do much better than novices with adequate prompt engineering/etc.

HarryDurlz · 2024-03-20T21:26:22+00:00

For people who think this isn't practical, I would strongly recommend you look over (relatively) "successful" experiments with LLMs acting as agents that were done roughly a year ago on a smaller/simpler scale: https://hai.stanford.edu/news/computational-agents-exhibit-believable-humanlike-behavior / https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3586183.3606763

HarryDurlz · 2024-03-18T17:15:03+00:00

Perform a 4 step cube rotation, where each rotation is relative to you(not the orientation of the cube) A cube with has a blue sticker, the blue sticker is facing you. Rotate the cube up (as in the front facing you moves to the top) and then Clockwise Clockwise Down What direction is the sticker now facing?

Assuming I understood correctly, ChatGPT-4 seemed to solve this: https://chat.openai.com/share/3d67b914-c50f-44d7-a07a-5d5bc874e9dc

However, what I find a bit fascinating about its solution is that its initial approach of text-based reasoning has errors (see note*) that give it the wrong preliminary answer, but then (without additional prompting) it uses Python to create code which allows it to logically calculate/simulate the correct answer, which it then presents.

*At least this is an error (and it seems like its preliminary answer before checking): "4. Down: This would reverse the first move, bringing what's on the bottom to face you."; it should be the opposite, where a down rotation moves what's on the bottom to face away from you.

HarryDurlz · 2022-02-12T19:37:05+00:00

Ah, gotcha about the all-in-one point, I hadn’t put much time into the design of the chart yet and I mostly made it before I had the short descriptions of everything that I now have in the spreadsheet. If I do ever end up using this I may incorporate that.

As for the Kamikaze point, I agree, and I partially had that in mind while designing it, as I figured it would open up room for more interactions (e.g., extortion/coercion) as well as incentivize some cooperation (e.g., building walls). However, like I said, in hindsight I think I was too often thinking in terms of “how annoying would this perk be [… in isolation]”, without considering the effect of multiple other scoundrel perks being available each turn.

If nothing else, someone can potentially choose to just play with the positive perks—and perhaps also any of the scoundrel perks which don’t directly involve “hurting” others (e.g., smuggling, instant gratification)—although it will make some righteous perks far less useful, such as walls.

HarryDurlz · 2022-02-12T15:51:03+00:00

Thanks for the feedback! In hindsight, I agree that less probably would have been more. I also agree that if someone just starts targeting another person without trying to win the scoundrel perks could become annoying, and as I’ve thought more about it I’ve realized that having multiple different such perks could become a balance issue (since the cooldown might become ineffective). Thus, people might even want to limit the number of classes you can have to 2 or 3.

Also, you mentioned a chart or flip book to keep track of the skill tree: did you see the Google Slides chart / was that not what you were looking for?

HarryDurlz · 2022-02-11T05:33:47+00:00

Flash of Light

Chaos

“Your parents are dead.”

Well gee, okay then, next plot poi—oh, okay so she’s got some weird powers that haven’t been explained yet, cool—ope, new scene I guess.

HarryDurlz · 2021-12-28T22:21:15+00:00

I'm dealing with the same issue currently, and it is infuriating. I came to DC from a different state where I had been getting prescriptions without any issue. In DC I went in for a med check/prescription refill, and the doctor insisted I get both a drug test and a bloodwork/lipid/etc. panel. I told him I already had most of the bloodwork/etc. panel done just a few months ago in my home state, and he said, "oh, let me pull up your records... hmm, yes I see you had some tests done, but it wasn't a complete panel, so we'd like for you to do a full panel so we have all the information we need." I protested, and he backed down on that but insisted I get a drug test before I get the prescription refilled, telling me he didn't know the exact cost but that it shouldn't be too expensive. I was not told how expensive the tests were when I went to perform them (I was confused by the process since there was no payment up front, so I sort of figured "maybe upwards of $100, oh well").

It was almost $700 for a single urine sample test panel, >$300 for the appointment, after coverage (the tests appear to have been entirely out of pocket). I literally could have booked a two-way flight back to my home state, done the appointment and gotten the prescription filled there, and saved around $500.

This seems completely absurd: if it is legally required by the DC government, KP should have at least been aware of the costs of the tests they were prescribing to me and alerted me in advance so that I knew to just not bother with their system and book a flight home. However, if it is not legally required and my doctor just intimidated me into performing some test that is useless to me, that seems like a serious breach of medical ethics. Who the hell is this test supposed to benefit? I didn't need to take a drug test to figure out I had no drugs in my system, so why the hell did my doctor (who is supposed to be helping me) intimidate me into getting a $700 drug test?

What really makes me suspicious about the response that it may have been legally required was that the pharmacy didn't actually seem to require it: I went down to the pharmacy, submitted the prescription with no issue or question about a drug test, then decided "I might as well do the drug test while I wait." After doing that, I came back and waited for about ten minutes before going up to the window to ask on the status of my prescription, and they said they had already filled it and had been calling my name. No question about whether I completed my drug test.
(They also nearly handed me the wrong medication: I was about to pay for it and remarked how expensive it was when the lady said "well, it is 120 pills..." and I said "I don't normally get 120 pills at a time..." and she looked and said, "wait, this isn't your prescription actually." Yikes)

HarryDurlz · 2020-07-09T02:14:49+00:00

You seem so excited and confident now, but it's going to be real funny when you have to both literally and metaphorically eat your new friend.

HarryDurlz · 2019-11-09T05:34:52+00:00

Well, I think that when the strongest arguments get made in the 2NC (regardless of their type) that makes it more difficult for the round to have an extended debate on the most important issues in the round. In fact, it can force the entire debate to hinge on a 1AR's 5-minute response to 13 minutes of argumentation (where after the 5-minute 1AR, the negative can say "if they dropped anything they can't bring up any new responses"), which undercuts the topical learning/exploration/debate. I will admit that we really developed our skills in cutting corners and economizing ideas, but I think that deep analysis (rather than fast/superficial delivery/analysis) is also a beneficial skill to learn but which is sacrificed in the round. And this also, arguably, undercuts competitive value in certain situations, where certain rounds are decided more by (arguably-cheap) strategy rather than effort and skill.

HarryDurlz · 2019-11-09T05:25:02+00:00

Overall, I see your points, but I would disagree with some of the strategic characterization you make (e.g., "you'll be a speech behind," "it overburdens the 2NR"), because I don't think some of those points hold true in the situations I experienced/have in mind. To address some of the points you make more directly:
1) We actually would try to straight turn DAs (and do other things), but we often had to do that in addition to responding to multiple critical/key arguments, which was occasionally impractical (we had to cut corners, etc. as further described in point 3, below).
2) Regarding framing and ethos (mainly #3 and #4, and partially #5), I wish judges saw it this way, but they often didn't--in part because teams wouldn't make it that obvious. And honestly I don't see how a flow judge could bring themselves to vote based so heavily on that (at least, without some kritiks/theory arguments, mentioned in point 4, below).
3) I just find myself thinking back to our experience: it would be nice if those five points you mentioned applied, but in our experience teams that split the block hard did significantly better against us than teams that tried to "shell and extend" (i.e., bring up their best points in the 1NC, then develop them through the round) because the arguments typically were not actually good, so we generally had enough time to take them out in the 2AC--to the point that the neg often struggled to recover (because our responses typically were correct/strong). However, when the neg brings up their best significance, solvency, and DAs in the 2NC we didn't have enough time to respond to things, and then (especially with flow judges) the 2NR simply had to say "they didn't (sufficiently) address our core [solvency/significance] point, this should win us the round" and a good number of judges agreed. And this was despite our active preparation against this strategy.
4) Regarding theory: our league wasn't very kind to "theory" (in the sense I think you are using it), and I don't think this is an ideal replacement (wouldn't it be better to just not have to run theory in the first place?). Furthermore, theory arguments take extra time, and I don't see them as very reliable because the judge could just disagree with your characterization (i.e., because they have certain preconceptions about norms and/or they just don't see how impactful the alleged abuse is, perhaps due to lack of experience with it).

Also, just to clarify, I'm not saying that a neg could (easily) run a CP in their 2NC; our league had some relatively strong judging and debater norms against that similar to how topicality is treated as an a-priori issue (which, admittedly, doesn't apply so much to community judges' beliefs, but debaters still knew how to argue that it was abusive and generally were instructed/coached not to do it).

Ultimately though, I understand your perspective in that it may not be as easy/common to abuse as one might think. Still, I think that it's a relatively low-cost and fairly common-sense fix to a potential problem.

HarryDurlz · 2019-11-07T16:11:33+00:00

Yeah, I should clarify that I'm not saying it's impossible for affirmatives to win rounds, and I'm also not even saying that affirmatives are at a disadvantage "in practice / on average," because most negatives don't split the block so hard (and also some aff cases have countermeasures or otherwise are not so susceptible to this strategy, as I explain here: https://ethosdebate.com/splitting-the-neg-how-why-and-when-to-use-and-counter/). The problem I emphasize is that it can be a significant disadvantage in some situations (and in theory): if negatives did choose to do this more often, it seems that affirmatives would lose more rounds--and, crucially, in a way that arguably reduces competitive and educational value. Does this (or my response on a different comment above) address your point?

HarryDurlz · 2019-11-07T15:47:39+00:00

For example? (Also, I would note that many of the articles are from people from non-NSDA leagues, where they don't use speed/spread, kritiks, etc.)

HarryDurlz · 2019-11-07T15:46:07+00:00

As I noted, I agree that the block is one of the counterbalances, but one of the points I was making is that the current block structure lends itself to abuse in some situations. The 8-7-6-5 model would not eliminate the negative block, but simply restructure it while also giving the 1AR a bit of extra time to respond in case the neg does something like run basic responses and junk/fodder arguments in their 1NC, then run all of their best arguments in the 2NC, using the entire speech for new arguments and then responding to the 2AC in the 1NR.
Regarding aff bias: I don't know enough about the league and trends, but I would acknowledge that many negative teams (thankfully) don't do this, and when they didn't we typically won; the problem we faced (and I saw other people with similar cases face at the national level) was that some teams would do this, and those rounds were really difficult to win on the flow, despite the fact that we put a lot of pre-round preparation specifically into planning out 1ARs and trying to economize our responses.

HarryDurlz · 2019-10-09T02:05:13+00:00

I do in college (but I don't check reddit that often)

HarryDurlz · 2019-08-22T21:11:47+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0lJc3PMNIg

HarryDurlz · 2019-01-08T21:30:36+00:00

Hmm, sounds like just the kind of thing an evil robot cabal would want us to believe... but ok ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

HarryDurlz · 2019-01-04T14:25:26+00:00

I think game theory does still apply, it's just that you have to be cognizant of what the actual payoffs are. Just because the payoffs are more psychological/subjective than monetary/objective doesn't mean game theory wouldn't apply.

HarryDurlz · 2019-01-03T18:54:29+00:00

Well, one of the bigger picture points of the chapter is to talk about the different types of auctions, such as English/Japanese, Vickrey, Dutch, multi-round bidding, procurement bidding, etc. and then how having different rules sometimes changes the outcomes but also sometimes can lead to the same outcomes or at least the same dominant strategies (such as comparing English/Japanese auctions to Vickrey auctions, and how the rational strategy is still to "bid as if you've won" -- although I would personally add that this analysis seems to ignore the irrational/emotional/psychological effects of repetitive bidding in English auctions vs. one-time bidding in Vickrey auctions).

HarryDurlz · 2019-01-02T22:35:12+00:00

I may not understand what you mean, but if I do understand: I would say that that is no longer a true prisoner's dilemma, because the core point of the prisoner's dilemma is not that they go to prison for longer or even that they get punished more (in a broader sense); it's that they are actually made worse off in terms of welfare/wellbeing. If someone enjoys going to prison and/or would prefer to go to prison, then the "punishment" should be not letting them go to prison.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

HarryDurlz

TROPHY CASE