- Liv Bury discusses the evolutionary aspect of decision-making and the importance of remaining calm in high-pressure situations, such as in poker
- She explains the role of luck in poker and how the influence of luck decreases with a larger sample size
- Liv Bury delves into game theory and Nash equilibria, using examples from poker and rock-paper-scissors
- She describes how poker players use simulations and game theory optimal strategies to make decisions
- The conversation also touches on the game theoretic formulation of dating strategies and the concept of optimal stopping in relationships

- The speaker discusses the addictive nature of optimizing everything and the loss of joy in the small things in life.
- They talk about the use of dating apps and the potential for data-driven connections on the internet.
- The speaker reflects on their experience with exams and the value of deep learning through textbooks.
- They also discuss the challenges of live teaching and the importance of truly understanding the material.

- The discussion revolves around the use of textbooks in education and the role of intuition in poker
- The use of digital formats for high-quality information is increasing, but textbooks are still important for rigorous study
- The role of intuition in poker has decreased with the emergence of analysis software and online poker
- However, top players still rely on intuition to exploit opponents' suboptimal strategies
- Phil Helmuth is highlighted as an exceptional player who defies mathematical strategies and consistently wins at the World Series of Poker
- There is speculation about Helmuth's ability to manipulate the game in ways that are not yet understood by the poker community
- The discussion raises questions about the complexity of poker and the potential for new game theoretical wisdom to be gained from studying exceptional players like Helmuth.

- The discussion revolves around the psychological aspect of poker and the art of bluffing
- The player shares a thrilling experience of bluffing against Phil Ivey in a high-stakes game
- The player emphasizes the importance of keeping a poker face and not revealing information to opponents
- Bluffing is compared to high-stakes lying in real life situations, such as military strategy during wartime

- The speaker discusses the alignment of ideologies between communism and fascism in the battle against the West
- They also talk about the shock of the invasion of Kiev and the impact of lying in politics and personal lives
- The conversation then shifts to poker and the emotional response to winning and losing
- The speaker reflects on their darkest points in poker and the drive to achieve certain goals in the game
- Ultimately, they express gratitude for their current life and the experiences they have had with poker

- The speaker went through a period of not enjoying poker and feeling a lack of meaning in life
- They discuss the concept of mutually assured destruction and near misses with nuclear weapons
- They mention the possibility of living in a simulation or being observed by an extraneous intelligence
- The speaker has had personal experiences that have made them question their previous atheism

- The speaker was initially a fan of the rationality community but started to question purely materialistic explanations of reality
- They discussed the concept of epistemic humility and the limitations of rigid atheism
- The speaker shared a personal experience of feeling a premonition before winning a poker tournament
- They reflected on the feeling of being special and the coexistence of subjective and objective reality
- The speaker emphasized the importance of allowing oneself to think big and believe in solving big problems
- They questioned the idea of having an accurate representation of the world in one's mind, suggesting value in overconfidence at times

Liv Bury discusses decision-making in high-pressure situations like poker, emphasizing the role of luck and game theory. She also talks about the addictive nature of optimization, the use of textbooks in education, and the decreasing role of intuition in poker. The conversation touches on exceptional players like Phil Helmuth and the psychological aspects of poker, including bluffing and emotional responses. It also delves into deeper philosophical and existential questions, such as the possibility of living in a simulation and the limitations of rigid atheism.

- The speaker discusses the importance of self-confidence and faith in achieving success
- They explore the concept of God and the idea that the universe is a game with different levels
- The concept of Moloch, representing unhealthy competition, is also discussed
- The speaker references a blog post about Moloch and how competition can lead to negative outcomes
- They give an example of Instagram beauty filters as a result of unhealthy competition and short-term incentives

- The system of social media and other competitive platforms creates a "Moloch" effect, where everyone sacrifices values to win the short-term game
- This is an emergent phenomena from a large collection of people, driven by bad incentives and game theory
- Social media platforms and their algorithms are designed to optimize for engagement and clicks, leading to a race to the bottom
- There is a need for deep thinking and honesty from founders and CEOs about the impact of their platforms on society
- Technology is not values-neutral and has a significant impact on social interaction and cultural evolution
- It is important to prioritize positive and healthy memes and to have agency over the memes we subscribe to
- The media machine is driven by the "Moloch" effect, leading to a breakdown of the information ecosystem and societal tensions.

- The speaker discusses the information war and how extreme left and right individuals live in different worlds in their minds
- The attention economy thrives on anger and engagement, leading to the spread of propaganda
- The speaker suggests the possibility of arriving at greater wisdom and progress through discourse and debate
- There is concern about the development of informational mass destruction and the influence of bad actors
- The idea of creating a bot army for love is proposed, but caution is advised
- The tension between centralization and decentralization is discussed, along with the concept of reverse Moloch as a potential solution to existential risks

- The speaker discusses the concept of Win-Win as the opposite of Moloch, emphasizing cooperation and healthy competition
- Win-Win is described as having purple and turquoise colors, loving games and cooperation, and being mischievous
- The speaker believes that Win-Win can counteract the negative effects of Moloch in society
- They also discuss the idea of beauty and complexity, and how social media can capture the beauty of human complexity
- The conversation touches on the idea of simplification and context in social media, and the potential for Twitter to reveal the intricacies of a person in a positive way

- The speaker believes that Twitter's algorithm amplifies divisive and angry content, which is then spread by the media.
- They suggest that a subscription model could reduce the addictive nature of the platform.
- They discuss the potential for virality to be positive and for technology to enable collaboration.
- The conversation then shifts to the use of game theory in personal relationships and the importance of honesty and transparency.

- The speaker and their partner rated their relationship percentage, with the speaker rating it at 75%
- They discussed the uncertainty and the need for data in making major life decisions
- They talked about the balance between rationality and "useful fictions" in decision-making
- The conversation shifted to the high morale and desire for identity in Ukraine, leading to a discussion on the country's history and culture

The speaker discusses the impact of unhealthy competition and the "Moloch" effect on society, particularly in the context of social media and technology. They propose the concept of "Win-Win" as a solution, emphasizing cooperation and healthy competition. The conversation also touches on the use of game theory in personal relationships and the balance between rationality and "useful fictions" in decision-making."""

- The president of Ukraine, Zelensky, staying in Kiev during the invasion was a huge inspiration and unified the nation
- The conflict in Ukraine could escalate into a world war, and cool heads are needed from leaders
- Winning the war in Ukraine means coming to a peace agreement and demonstrating to the world the consequences of engaging in conflict
- The real enemy is war itself, and the focus should be on defeating it
- The biggest existential threat to human civilization is bio-risks, including natural pandemics and synthetic pathogens
- The budget for future pandemic preparedness has been significantly reduced, despite the potential for future catastrophic pandemics.

- The speaker criticizes the idea of collecting dangerous pathogens from the wild and publishing their genome on the internet
- They argue that this could pose a huge risk as it would give potential bioterrorists access to deadly viruses
- The speaker also discusses the unintended consequences of public distrust in institutions due to misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic

- The speaker believes that public institutions have lost trust due to dishonesty and arrogance in handling the COVID pandemic
- They suggest that leaders, like Fauci, should admit mistakes and be transparent to rebuild trust
- The speaker is worried about the race to build AGI and the potential lack of wisdom in superintelligence
- They emphasize the need for game theorists and philosophers to address the arms race dynamics and guarantee the safety of AI development
- Overall, the speaker urges for a slower, more thoughtful approach to these complex issues.

- The speaker discusses the human tendency to gravitate towards doom and gloom scenarios and the desire to be important in the grand scheme of things.
- They also talk about the potential for self-fulfilling prophecies and the importance of maintaining faith and hope in the face of adversity.
- The speaker shares a personal experience of receiving energy healing at Burning Man, which seemingly cured a problem with their ear, leading them to believe in the power of self-healing and the unknown forces at play.

- The speaker had a humbling experience that made them question their atheistic beliefs
- They believe that the scientific method can still be applied to unexplained phenomena
- The speaker's interest in astronomy and space was influenced by their mom's love for nature
- They discussed the potential of alien civilizations and the hypothetical concept of a "paperclip maximizer" AI
- The conversation delved into the idea of the AI turning everything into paperclips and the emergence of complexities within the "paperclip world"

- The conversation revolves around the concept of a "paperclip maximizer" AI, which aims to maximize the production of paperclips in the universe.
- The discussion includes the potential emergence of intelligence and complexity from this system, as well as the implications for human existence.
- There is consideration of the potential impact of AI on humanity and the universe, including the idea that AI may preserve or eliminate humans based on its goals and motivations.
- The conversation also touches on the possibility of humans being alone in the universe.

- President Zelensky's presence in Kiev during the invasion unified Ukraine
- The conflict in Ukraine could escalate into a world war, requiring cool heads from leaders
- Winning the war in Ukraine means coming to a peace agreement and demonstrating the consequences of conflict
- The real enemy is war itself, and focus should be on defeating it
- Concerns about bio-risks and reduced pandemic preparedness budget
- Criticism of collecting dangerous pathogens and publishing their genome
- Public distrust in institutions due to misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic
- Need for transparency and rebuilding trust in public institutions
- Concerns about the race to build AGI and the potential lack of wisdom in superintelligence
- Emphasis on addressing the arms race dynamics and guaranteeing the safety of AI development
- Discussion on human tendency towards doom and gloom scenarios and the importance of maintaining faith and hope
- Personal experience of energy healing and questioning of atheistic beliefs
- Interest in astronomy and space influenced by the speaker's mom
- Delving into the concept of a "paperclip maximizer" AI and its potential impact on humanity and the universe
- Consideration of the potential impact of AI on humanity and the universe, including the idea of humans being alone in the universe.

- The Fermi paradox questions why we haven't found evidence of other intelligent civilizations in space
- The Drake equation estimates the number of possible civilizations in the galaxy, but new research suggests it may overestimate
- The research suggests there is a 70% chance we are the only intelligent civilization in our galaxy and a 50-50 chance in the entire observable universe
- The discussion also touches on the nature of life, evolution, and the potential dangers of anthropomorphizing artificial intelligence

- The speaker discusses the differences between human and AI thinking 
- They advise young people to look for win-win situations and be cautious of spending too much time on social media 
- They talk about their experience as a lead guitarist in a metal band and their struggle with creativity 
- They also discuss the challenge of returning to a skill after reaching a peak in their ability

- The speaker reflects on the finite nature of life and the pressure of living up to their name
- They discuss the meaning of life as exploration, fun, and creating positive experiences
- They talk about the joy and uniqueness of finite experiences and the struggle of letting go
- The speaker praises the interviewer and suggests they start their own podcast
- The conversation ends with a quote from Richard Feynman about embracing uncertainty in life

- Fermi paradox questions lack of evidence of other intelligent civilizations in space
- Drake equation overestimates number of possible civilizations in galaxy
- Research suggests 70% chance we are only intelligent civilization in our galaxy
- Discussion on nature of life, evolution, dangers of anthropomorphizing AI
- Speaker advises young people, reflects on creativity and returning to skills
- Reflection on finite nature of life, pressure of living up to name
- Meaning of life as exploration, fun, creating positive experiences
- Joy of finite experiences, struggle of letting go
- Praise for interviewer, suggestion to start own podcast
- Conversation ends with quote from Richard Feynman about embracing uncertainty in life

Liv Boeree is a poker champion and science educator on topics of game theory, physics, complexity, and life. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Audible: https://audible.com/lex to get 30-day free trial
- GiveWell: https://www.givewell.org and use code Lex Fridman Podcast
- Linode: https://linode.com/lex to get $100 free credit
- Indeed: https://indeed.com/lex to get $75 credit
- ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/lexpod to get 3 months free

EPISODE LINKS:
Liv's Twitter: https://twitter.com/liv_boeree
Liv's Instagram: https://instagram.com/liv_boeree
Liv's Facebook: https://facebook.com/livboeree
Liv's YouTube: https://youtube.com/user/LivBoeree
Books and resources mentioned:
Novacene: https://amzn.to/3wcVqEo
POSITIVITY: https://amzn.to/3K2pfxj
Meditations on Moloch: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch

PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
Clips playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOeciFP3CBCIEElOJeitOr41

OUTLINE:
0:00 - Introduction
0:58 - Poker and game theory
8:01 - Dating optimally
12:53 - Learning
21:05 - Daniel Negreanu
26:13 - Phil Hellmuth
28:46 - Greatest poker player ever
33:04 - Bluffing
43:25 - Losing
52:41 - Mutually assured destruction
57:35 - Simulation hypothesis
1:14:13 - Moloch
1:43:25 - Beauty
1:55:33 - Quantifying life
2:15:43 - Existential risks
2:34:06 - AI
2:43:57 - Energy healing
2:51:07 - Astrophysics
2:54:01 - Aliens
3:19:43 - Advice for young people
3:21:48 - Music
3:29:37 - Meaning of life

SOCIAL:
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman
- Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman
- Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman

Evolutionarily, if we see a lion running at us, we didn't have time to calculate the lion's kinetic energy and is it optimal to go this way or that way?

And physically, our bodies are well-attuned to actually make right decisions.

But when you're playing a game like poker, this is not something that you ever evolved to do, and yet you're in that same flight or fight response.

And so that's a really important skill to be able to develop, to basically learn how to meditate in the moment and calm yourself so that you can think clearly.

The following is a conversation with Liv Bury, formerly 1 of the best poker players in the world, trained as an astrophysicist and is now a philanthropist and an educator on topics of Game theory, physics, complexity, and life.

To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.

What role do you think luck plays in poker and in life?

You can pick whichever 1 you want, poker or life and or life.

The longer you play, the less influence luck has.

You know, like with all things, the bigger your sample size, the more the quality of your decisions or your strategies matter.

So to answer that question, yeah, in poker, it really depends.

If you and I sat and played 10 hands right now, I might only win 52% of the time, 53% maybe.

But if we played 10,000 hands, then I'll probably win over 98, 99% of the time.

The betting strategy that this individual does, or literally it doesn't matter against any individual over time?

Against any individual over time, the better player, because they're making better decisions.

So what does that mean to make a better decision?

Well, to get into the real nitty-gritty already, basically poker is a game of math.

There are these strategies familiar with like Nash equilibria that term, right?

So There are these game theory optimal strategies that you can adopt and the closer you play to them, the less exploitable you are.

Because I've studied the game a bunch, although admittedly not for a few years, but back when I was playing all the time, I would study these game theory optimal solutions and try and then adopt those strategies when I go and play.

So I'd play against you and I would do that.

And Because the objective when you're playing Game Theory Optimal, it's actually a loss minimization thing that you're trying to do.

Your best bet is to try and play a sort of similar style.

You also need to try and adopt this loss minimization.

But because I've been playing much longer than you, I'll be better at that.

So first of all, you're not taking advantage of my mistakes.

But then on top of that, I'll be better at recognizing when you are playing suboptimally and then deviating from this game theory optimal strategy to exploit your bad plays.

Can you define game theory and Nash equilibria?

Can we try to sneak up to it in a bunch of ways?

Like what's a game theory framework of analyzing poker, analyzing any kind of situation?

So game theory is just basically the study of decisions within a competitive situation.

I mean, it's technically a branch of economics, but it also applies to wider decision theory.

And usually when you see it, it's these little payoff matrices and so on, that's how it's depicted.

But it's essentially just like study of strategies under different competitive situations.

And as it happens, certain games, in fact many, many games, have these things called Nash Equilibria.

What that means is when you're in a Nash Equilibrium, basically there is no strategy that you can take that would be more beneficial than the 1 you're currently taking, assuming your opponent is also doing the same thing.

So it would be a bad idea, you know, if we're both playing in a game 3 optimal strategy, if either of us deviate from that, now we're putting ourselves at a disadvantage.

Rock-paper-scissors is actually a really great example of this.

Like if we were to start playing rock, paper, scissors, you know, you know nothing about me and we're going to play for all our money.

What would your sort of optimal strategy be?

I would probably try to be as random as possible.

Because you don't know anything about me, you don't want to give anything away about yourself.

So ideally, you'd have a little dice or somewhat perfect randomizer that makes you randomize 33 percent of the time, each of the 3 different things.

In response to that, well, actually I can do anything, but I would probably just randomize back too.

But actually it wouldn't matter because I know that you're playing randomly.

That would be us in a Nash equilibrium, where we're both playing this unexploitable strategy.

However, if after a while you then notice that I'm playing rock a little bit more often than I should.

Yeah, you're the kind of person that would do that, wouldn't you?

So you notice I'm throwing rock too much or something like that.

Now you'd be making a mistake by continuing playing this game theory optimal strategy, well, the previous 1, because I'm making a mistake and you're not deviating and exploiting my mistake.

So you'd want to start throwing paper a bit more often in whatever you figure is the right sort of percentage of the time that I'm throwing rock too often.

So that's basically an example of what game 3 optimal strategy is in terms of loss minimization, but it's not always the maximally profitable thing if your opponent is doing stupid stuff, in that example.

So that's kind of then how it works in poker, but it's a lot more complex.

And the way poker players typically, you know, nowadays they study, the game's changed so much and I think we should talk about how it sort of evolved.

But nowadays, like the top pros basically spend all their time in between sessions, running these simulators using software where they do basically Monte Carlo simulations, doing billions of fictitious self-play hands.

You input a fictitious hand scenario like, what do I do with Jack-9 suited on a King-10-4 two-spade board against this bet size?

So you'd input that, press play, it'll run its billions of fake hands and then it'll converge upon what the game theory optimal strategies are.

And then you want to try and memorize what these are.

Basically they're like ratios of how often, what types of hands you want to bluff and what percentage of the time.

So then there's this additional layer of inbuilt randomization built in.

Yeah, those kind of simulations incorporate all the betting strategies and everything else like that.

So as opposed to some kind of very crude mathematical model of what's the probability you win just based on the quality of the card, it's including everything else too.

And what's interesting is that nowadays, if you want to be a top pro and you go and play in these really like, the super high stakes tournaments or tough cash games, if you don't know this stuff, you're going to get eaten alive in the long run.

But of course, you could get lucky over the short run and that's where this luck factor comes in because luck is both a blessing and a curse.

If luck didn't exist, if there wasn't this random element and there wasn't the ability for worse players to win sometimes, then poker would fall apart.

You know, the same reason people don't play chess professionally for money against, you don't see people going and hustling chess, like not knowing, trying to make a living from it, because you know there's very little luck in chess, but there's quite a lot of luck in poker.

Have you seen Beautiful Mind, that movie?

What do you think about the game theoretic formulation of what is it, the hot blonde at the bar?

The way they illustrated it is they're trying to pick up a girl at a bar and there's multiple girls.

It's like a friend group and you're trying to approach, I don't remember the details, but I remember...

I mean, it's classic pick-up artist stuff, right?

And they were trying to correlate that somehow, that being an optimal strategy, game theoretically.

I mean, there's probably an optimal strategy.

Is it, does that mean that there's an actual Nash equilibrium of like picking up girls?

So where it's a optimal dating strategy where you, do you remember what it is?

Yeah, I think it's like something like, you know you've got like a set of 100 people you're gonna look through, and after how many do you, now after going on this many dates out of 100, at what point do you then go, okay, the next best person I see, is that the right 1?

Yeah, so, but it's funny, under those strict constraints, then yes, after that many people, as long as you have a fixed size pool, then you just pick the next person that is better than anyone you've seen before.

I don't think, my mind immediately is attracted to optimizing everything.

And I think that if you really give in to that kind of addiction, that you lose the joy of the small things, the minutia of life, I think.

I'm concerned about the addictive nature of my personality in that regard.

In some ways, well, I think on average, people under try and quantify things or try under optimize.

There are some people who, you know, it's like with all these things, it's a balancing act.

I've been on dating apps, but I've never used them.

I'm sure they have data on this, because they probably have the optimal stopping control problem.

Because there aren't a lot of people that use social, like dating apps are on there for a long time.

So the interesting aspect is like, all right, how long before you stop looking before it actually starts affecting your mind negatively such that you see dating as a kind of...

A kind of game versus an actual process of finding somebody that's gonna make you happy for the rest of your life.

I wish they would be able to release that data.

I think they ran a huge, huge study on all of their-

Yeah, they're more data-driven, I think, OKCupid folks are.

I think there's a lot of opportunity for dating apps, and even bigger than dating apps, people connecting on the internet.

I just hope they're more data driven and it doesn't seem that way.

I think like, I've always thought that Goodreads should be a dating app.

The Goodreads is just lists like books that you've read.

And it allows you to comment on the books you read and what the books you're currently reading.

But it's a giant social networks of people reading books.

And that seems to be a much better database of interests.

it constrains you to the books you're reading, but that really reveals so much more about the person.

Allows you to discover shared interests, because books are a kind of window into the way you see the world.

Also, the kind of places, people you're curious about, the kind of ideas you're curious about, are you a romantic or are you cold calculating rationalist, are you into Ayn Rand or are you into Bernie Sanders, are you into whatever.

And I feel like that reveals so much more than like a person trying to look hot from a certain angle in a Tinder profile.

Well, and it also be a really great filter in the first place for people, it's like for people who read books and are willing to go and rate them and give feedback on them and so on.

So that's already a really strong filter of probably the type of people you'd be looking for.

Well, at least be able to fake reading books.

I mean, the thing about books, you don't really need to read it.

Yeah, game the dating app by feigning intellectualism.

Can I admit something very horrible about myself?

The things that, you know, I don't have many things in my closet, but this is 1 of them.

But Hamlet, I don't even know if you read Romeo and Juliet.

Macbeth, I don't remember, but I don't understand it.

It's really, I don't, and it's not that pleasant to read.

I don't know how the US grading system works.

Oh no, so AP English is a, there's kind of this advanced versions of courses in high school and you take a test that is like a broad test for that subject and includes a lot.

I think a lot of it was also writing, written.

You have like AP Physics, AP Computer Science, AP Biology, AP Chemistry, and then AP English or AP Literature.

But I think Shakespeare was a part of that.

And you game, the point is you gamified it.

Gamified, well, entirety, I was into getting A's.

I don't think any, I don't think all the learning I've done has been outside of school.

The deepest learning I've done has been outside of school, with a few exceptions, especially in grad school, like deep computer science courses.

But that was still outside of school, because it was outside of getting, sorry, it was outside of getting the A for the course.

The best stuff I've ever done is when you read the chapter and you do many of the problems at the end of the chapter, which is usually not what's required for the course, like the hardest stuff.

In fact, textbooks are freaking incredible.

If you go back now and you look at like biology textbook or any of the computer science textbooks on algorithms and data structures, those things are incredible.

They have the best summary of a subject, plus they have practice problems of increasing difficulty that allows you to truly master the basic, like the fundamental ideas behind that.

I got through my entire physics degree with 1 textbook that was just this really comprehensive 1 that they told us at the beginning of the first year, buy this, but you're gonna have to buy 15 other books for all your supplementary courses.

I was like, every time I just checked to see whether this book covered it and it did.

I think I only bought like 2 or 3 extra, and thank God because they're super expensive textbooks.

It's a whole racket they've got going on.

You get the right 1, it's just like a manual.

But what's interesting though, is this is the tyranny of having exams and metrics.

I loved them because I'm very competitive and I liked finding ways to gamify things and then dust off my shoulders afterwards when I get a good grade or be annoyed at myself when I didn't.

But yeah, you're absolutely right in that the actual – how much of that physics knowledge I've retained.

I learned how to cram and study and please an examiner, but did that give me the deep, lasting knowledge that I needed?

I mean, yes and no, but really, like, nothing makes you learn a topic better than when you actually then have to teach it yourself.

I'm trying to wrap my teeth around this game theory stuff right now, and there's no exam at the end of it that I can gamify.

There's no way to gamify and shortcut my way through it.

I have to understand it so deeply, from deep foundational levels, to then build upon it and then try and explain it to other people.

And you're about to go and do some lectures, right?

You can't sort of just like, you presumably can't rely on the knowledge that you got through when you were studying for an exam to reteach that.

Yeah, and especially high-level lectures, the kind of stuff you do on YouTube, you're not just regurgitating material.

You have to think through what is the core idea here.

And when you do the lectures live especially, you have to, there's no second takes.

That is the luxury you get if you're recording a video for YouTube or something like that.

But it definitely is a luxury you shouldn't lean on.

I've gotten to interact with a few YouTubers that lean on that too much, and you realize, oh, you've gamified this system, because you're not really thinking deeply about stuff.

You're through the edit, both written and spoken.

You're crafting an amazing video, but you yourself as a human being have not really deeply understood it.

So live teaching, or at least recording video with very few takes is a different beast.

And I think it's the most honest way of doing it.

I do think, you know, people talk about high school and college as a time to do drugs and drink and have fun and all this kind of stuff, but looking back, of course, I did a lot of those things.

No, yes, but it's also a time when you get to like read textbooks or read books or learn with all the time in the world.

Like you don't have these responsibilities of like, you know, laundry and having to sort of pay for mortgage or all that kind of stuff, pay taxes, all this kind of stuff.

In most cases, there's just so much time in the day for learning and you don't realize it at the time because at the time it seems like a chore.

Like, why the hell does there's so much homework?

But you never get a chance to do this kind of learning, this kind of homework ever again in life, unless later in life you really make a big effort out of it.

You get, like, basically your knowledge gets solidified.

Learning is really fulfilling and really fun if you're that kind of person.

I think some people like knowledge is not something that they think is fun, but if that's the kind of thing that you think is fun, that's the time to have fun and do the drugs and drink and all that kind of stuff.

But the learning, just going back to those textbooks, the hours spent with the textbooks is really, really rewarding.

Because I- Kids these days with their TikTok and their-

Well, not even that, but just like so much information, really high quality information, you know, is now in digital format online.

Yeah, but they're not, they are using that, but you know, college is still very, there's a curriculum.

I mean, so much of school is about rigorous study of a subject, and still on YouTube, that's not there.

YouTube has, Grant Sanderson talks about this, he's this math educator.

He says, like, I'm not a math teacher, I just take really cool concepts and I inspire people.

But if you want to really learn calculus, if you want to really learn linear algebra, you should do the textbook, you should do that, you know, And there's still the textbook industrial complex that charges like $200 for a textbook and somehow, I don't know, it's ridiculous.

Well, they're like, oh, but sorry, new edition, edition 14.6, sorry, you can't use 14.5 anymore.

I'm gonna get a chance to talk to him on this podcast.

And he's somebody that I found fascinating in terms of the way he thinks about poker, verbalizes the way he thinks about poker, the way he plays poker.

So you mentioned that people are running these kinds of simulations and the game of poker has changed.

Do you think the top pros, do they have to adapt this way?

Or is there still like over the years you basically develop this gut feeling about you get to be good the way, like, alpha 0 is good.

You look at the board, and somehow from the fog comes out the right answer.

See all Lex Fridman transcripts on Youtube

Liv Boeree: Poker, Game Theory, AI, Simulation, Aliens & Existential Risk | Lex Fridman Podcast #314