I can't see why is it flawed. There's usually one winner (or a small group) at the end of the game. If everyone will be a winner, what a game it would be?
Conversation
As a proper analogy, you would have to imagine a game played by 10,000 people, and in the end, only 1 is the winner, and all 9,999 are literall called losers. Yes such method is logically flawed.
1
But that's how games work. Olympics, for example. Yeah, there are these cooperative win/win games, but evolution is not of that kind, I'm afraid.
1
Please stop. Find one game with 10,000 players, where 9,999 are labeled losers, one labeled winner. You correctly brought up the gene narrative, a cornerstone of the theory of evolution, and I pointed out for this very reason, evolution is not about winners and losers.
1
Every game in Olympics. You have hundreds of athletes that compete in national championships, then 1 or some more go to Olympics, then one of these thousands win.
1
Please, show me one game with 10,000 participants, where 9,999 will be declared losers, and one declared winner. Stop fooling around.
1
Chess, if you don't like Olympics. There are millions of chess players and Magnus Carlsen is reigning world champion. He is the winner.
1
Yet thousands and thousands of other players are also called winners. Please stop.
1
Yeah, but look at this other way: you can certainly name those who lose at chess. They are losers. And those who are not losers - they are winners. Intermediate winners. That's just how I look at this.
1
If you want to continue the mental gymnastics, and we know AI can beat any human chess player, what conclusion will you have to be forced to draw?
1
That's complicated. AI doesn't have that genetic lust for life and will to survive at any cost. Because it doesn't have our physical genes. And that gives me a slight hope that humanity won't be wiped out soon.
Show more replies