A podcast by venture capital firm Lux Capital on the opportunities and risks of science, technology, finance and the human condition. Hosted by Danny Crichton f...
Why immersion — and not realism — is critical for wargaming
Despite centuries of experience designing and playing war games, there is still very little rigorous research on how to evaluate what makes a good game. What’s the design goal? How much should (or even can) a game reflect reality? Are tighter or looser rules more likely to lead to productive learning? Is having fun important? That lack of rigorous analysis has historically stymied the wargaming profession, but a new generation of researchers want to push the field forward.Today, with both Danny Crichton and Laurence Pevsner on vacation, we bring back our independent Riskgaming designer Ian Curtiss to host David Banks. David is senior lecturer in wargaming at the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, where his research focuses on the empirical evaluation of war games and how the craft can evolve in the years ahead. He is also the academic director of the King’s Wargaming Network.Ian and David discuss the antecedents of wargaming, firming up the foundations of the field, why realism isn’t as useful a metric as engagement, why balancing play and realism is so challenging, how to consider internal validity in games and why its important not just to evaluate a game as a whole, but also its constituent parts.Produced by Christopher GatesMusic by George Ko
--------
43:31
“We have an addiction to prediction”
Humans hate uncertainty, which means we are constantly looking for means to narrowly consider the future and its implications. Planning, predicting and debating what’s next may be the mainstay of any organization in the world, but organizations rarely want to confront upcoming existential challenges or radical shifts in strategy. That’s where foresight psychology comes in, with the goal of unearthing our avoidance of tough questions and finding ways to overcome them.With Danny Crichton and Laurence Pevsner out on holiday, this is a special episode bringing together our independent Riskgaming designer Ian Curtiss and his friend Graham Norris. Norris has a doctorate in organizational psychology and for the past decade, has consulted with all kinds of businesses around the world on his theories of foresight psychology.Ian and Graham discuss what makes us blind to the future, why psychologists have not been heavily represented in futurism, the difference between individual and organizational approaches to foresight, and why scenario thinking is an important approach to understanding challenges.Produced by Christopher GatesMusic by George Ko
--------
28:22
“Every system can be gamed”
AI and democracy are in great tension with each other. AI models are built by a priesthood of research specialists, unmoored from the will of the public. Yet, these very models are increasingly running important parts of the economy and increasingly government. How do we take advantage of these new capabilities without losing control of them?That’s the debate at the center of our conversation today with Gideon Lichfield, the writer behind the Substack “Futurepolis” and the former editor-in-chief of Wired. Through his recent writings, Gideon has explored what a public option might look like with AI, how participatory democracy can be buttressed by new organizational and technical designs, and the tactical changes needed to make it much easier for government to procure software.Joined by host Danny Crichton and Riskgaming director of programming Laurence Pevsner, we first talk about Gideon’s two recent experiences playing our scenarios on the Chinese electric vehicle market and AI deepfakes. Then we pivot to a broader conversation on the future of governance, discussing everything from participatory budgeting and liquid democracy to balancing between technocracy and democracy while remaining optimistic about the future.Produced by Christopher GatesMusic by Georg Ko
--------
45:00
Americans are an incredibly generous people
Amidst the upheaval in Washington, D.C. these days, one of the most notable and controversial decision from the second Trump administration has been the dismantling and closure of the United States Agency for International Development (or U.S.A.I.D.). In addition to funding humanitarian response and global public health initiatives (most notably with HIV/AIDS), the agency has prioritized governance programs all throughput the world. Traditionally, self-interest alone has proven sufficient for helping America’s current and future allies alike.That’s no longer the case, according to Maany Peyvan, the former senior director of communications and policy at the agency under the Biden administration. He argues that instead of self-interest, we need to recast efforts to help other countries through the lens of charity, emphasizing America’s long-standing leadership as one of the most charitable nations in the world when public and private giving are added together.We talk about the plight of U.S.A.I.D., what’s happening with the staff, why self-interest no longer has the same purchase over debates on foreign relations as it once did, how technologies like artificial intelligence are transforming aid work, and why grants and finance work side-by-side in helping countries succeed.Produced by Christopher GatesMusic by George Ko
--------
33:47
How America holds it all together
There are two sides of America. One is the country’s world-leading innovation centers, which offer the highest salaries and potential wealth creation anywhere in the world. The other is the bleak deindustrialized hinterlands where former mines and factories once dotted the landscape. Here, middle class jobs have been casualized or wiped out entirely, leaving behind a depressing and well-trodden tale of economic loss.Joining host Danny Crichton and Riskgaming director of programming Laurence Pevsner is Michael Beckley, a professor at Tufts University and the author of the recent essay, “The Strange Triumph of a Broken America.” He argues that the decentralized institutions that make America strong are also precisely its most vulnerable feature. Creative destruction is extremely useful in fast-moving fields like software, but is anathema to building an industrial base where capital assets are key. How can America balance between the two without losing both?We talk about the vagaries of America’s domestic and foreign policies, how to balance decentralization with creating pathways toward greater prosperity, whether America is returning to isolationism and finally, what we can do with left behind regions to return them to prominence and success.Produced by Christopher GatesMusic by George Ko
A podcast by venture capital firm Lux Capital on the opportunities and risks of science, technology, finance and the human condition. Hosted by Danny Crichton from our New York City studios.
Netherlands