> Nonetheless, he said, his research offers evidence that Native Americans were doing complex counting and were likely to have been the first humans to contemplate concepts like the law of large numbers, a mathematics concept that describes how a random sample will trend toward an equal distribution over time.
That's a stretch. Most early "gambling" was a way of putting the choice to the gods.
> the intellectual aspects of native Native American cultures have really been sidelined, if not consciously suppressed by colonial powers
Or maybe intellectual refers to someone a position in a society that sufficiently well-off to be able to support some guy not having to provide work for collective survival and who can spend time trying to formalize abstract thinking for which writing would help with (which north americans natives did not have)
It's ok, it can be an interesting culture worthy of being studied, and of course they weren't dummies, but trying to pretend that north american natives were "contemplating concepts like the law of large numbers" without writing device or support nor some kind of alphabet, come on
Yes colonization is awful and yes the natives were genocided but that doesn't mean that everyone was on its way too landing on the moon had they not been suppressed both physically and culturally. The path to civilization only gets narrower and the people who get to contribute meaningfully fewer and fewer.
If his evidence of complex counting is convincing, then it's not implausible to me that they soon also had some rudimentary understanding of e.g. coin flip frequencies.
That's not how pre-statistical reasoning works. We have known for a long time that coins tend to land on either side around half the time. But before statistics, the outcome of any individual coin toss was considered "not uncertain, merely unknown".
Before you toss the coin, God has determined with full certainty on which side it will land based on everything riding on that coin toss and all the third-order consequences, in His infinite wisdom. It cannot land on any side other than the preordained. The way you find God's will is to flip the coin.
To the pre-statistical brain it was unthinkable (and probably blasphemeous) to perform any sort of expected value calculation on this.
We know today that the frequency is useful for making decisions around the individual throws. Back then, that connection just wasn't there. Each throw was considered its own unique event.
(We can still see this in e.g. statistically illiterate fans of football. Penalty kicks are a relatively stable random process -- basically a weighted coin toss. Yet you'll see fans claim each penalty kick is a unique event completely disconnected from the long-run frequency.)
Statistics is a very young invention. As far as we know, it didn't exist in meaningful form anywhere on Earth until the 1600s. (However, if it existed in the Americas earlier than that, that would explain why it suddenly popped up in Europe in the 1600s...)
----
Important edit: What I know about this comes mostly from Weisberg's Willful Ignorance as well as A World of Chance by Brenner, Brenner, and Brown. These authors' research is based mostly on European written sources, meaning the emphasis is on how Europeans used to think about this.
It's possible different conceptualisations of probability existed elsewhere. It's possible even fully-fledged statistical reasoning existed, although it seems unlikely because it is the sort of thing that relies heavily on written records, and those would come up in research. But it's possible! That's what I meant by the last parenthetical – maybe Europeans didn't invent it at all, but were merely inspired by existing American practice.
Anytime you bring God into it... the concept of truth has the option of getting very abstract.
It's pretty common, for example, to believe that God is on our side and we will win the war or somesuch. Actually walking onto a battlefield with a literal expectation of divine intervention... much less as common. Pious generals still believe in tactics, steel and suchlike. Not always... but usually.
European pre-modern writers were mostly very pious. The works preserved are likewise very pious. Greek philosophers were often closer to atheists than later Christians.
Yes, but so too is a modern western framing of these “dice” as “gambling” objects.
And also, the esteem in recognizing them as prefiguring a skill or system of thought that fund managers and FDA panels use today. In a roundabout way, it praises our own society’s systems by recognizing an ancient civilization for potentially having discovered some of their mathematical preliminaries.
Fatalism is widespread, but not nearly universal enough that we can say it was the norm 15000 years ago.
For that matter, people who were pretty fatalist were still capable of using chance for purposes of fairness. The democrats in ancient Athens come to mind. I'm also pretty sure the (Christian) apostles' use of chance was also more about avoiding a human making the decision, than about divination.
I'm not saying divination isn't a thing, I'm saying there are examples of use of chance where it doesn't seem like divination.
Athenians selected through sortition didn't seem to act much like they believed they were chosen by the gods, and they defended their institutions mainly as wisdom, not as revelation.
And the apostles, being Jews, had a big taboo about using chance to determine God's will, but apparently not against using chance to fill vacancies.
There are bible passages suggesting the outcome of lots is God's will, and there are passages condemning divination. You can find them from the same links you posted above. But at the time of the apostles, it was a no-no to use chance to figure out God's will.
Please don't just shake links out of your sleeve, and talk to me instead. Do you think the Athenians acted like they were chosen by the gods when their number came up?
Don't you see a difference between the situations where chance could clearly have been used simply as a mechanism for fairness / avoiding a biased choice, and things like reading the movement of the birds or interpreting the shape of molten lead thrown into water?
Even in things like the goat choice in the bible you link above, I think it may be more about fairness than divination. Because as far as I know, the priests actually got to eat the sacrificial goat, but not the scapegoat they chased into the wild. So was it really about divining which goat God hated more, or was it maybe about "don't cheat by keeping the juicy goat for yourselves and chasing away the mangy one!"?
> No prehistoric dice have ever been discovered in the eastern part of North America.
Come on, you don’t really think modern statistics might’ve come about from Europeans taking inspiration in the gambling practices of nomadic peoples in remote southwestern parts of North America. No need to pay lip service to every scold.
> it's not implausible to me that they soon also had some rudimentary understanding of e.g. coin flip frequencies
We can actually tell from their dice that they don’t.
I believe in the book Against the Gods the author described ancient dice being—mostly—uneven. (One exception, I believe, was ancient Egypt.) The thinking was a weird-looking dice looks the most intuitively random. It wasn’t until later, when the average gambler started statistically reasoning, that standardized dice became common.
These dice are highly non-standard. In their own way, their similarity to other cultures of antiquities’ senses of randomness is kind of beautiful.
It's not entirely crazy. I believe Thorp described this about roulette wheels. If they had no imperfection at all, it would be computationally laborious but not unthinkable to compute the result from the initial positions and velocities. In order to be unpredictable, roulette wheels need to have imperfections. Those very same imperfections, of course, lead to some statistical regularities.
I use an overlay copy of my workdir, then the sandboxed LLM doesn't get any of my secrets, can do its own commits, and I pull the ones back that I want.
You can copy your claude credentials into the VM and run off that. Just beware that the subscription credentials file expires every half hour and then the agent tries to refresh which is annoying (especially if you have multiple sandboxed agents), so the better way is to get a long-running subscription API key (no extra cost for that) and just pass it in.
# Create a new sandbox copying . as workdir (default container, but you can choose vm)
yoloai new mybugfix . --isolation vm
# attach to it (it has tmux already)
yoloai attach mybugfix
# Chat with the bot inside...
# Happy with its work? Diff it to be sure
yoloai diff mybugfix
# Happy with the changes? Apply them to your workdir
yoloai apply mybugfix
# All done? Destroy the sandbox
yoloai destroy mybugfix
The agent stays isolated at all times. No access to your secrets (except what you want), no access to your workdir until you apply. You can also easily restrict network access.
This does the same thing as in the blog post, except that there are a LOT of gotchas and minutiae and some yak shaving involved if you want to keep doing it manually.
I've gone through the whole path the author has, and finally had to admit that it's too much fiddling around to do it manually. Easier to just have a cmdline tool that does it for you. That's why I built it in the first place.
It actually runs git (with hooks disabled) to generate the diff. It happens on the host when using copy mode, and inside the sandbox when using overlay mode.
The above example doesn't specify workdir mounting mode, so it would be copy, not overlay.
I built yoloAI, which is a single go binary that runs anywhere on mac or linux, sandboxing your agents in disposable containers or VMs, nested or not.
Your agent never has access to your secrets or even your workdir (only a copy, and only what you specify), and you pull the changes back with a diff/apply workflow, reviewing any changes before they land. You also control network access.
I'm building a robust sandboxing environment for AI agents.
It supports multiple sandboxing backends such as docker, podman, kata, firecracker, and for Mac seatbelt and tart.
Any agent is in theory supported, but it has specific support for Claude, Gemini, codex, aider, and opencode.
Your workdir is never touched by the AI, nor is your system. It doesn't have access to your secrets (beyond what you've explicitly given), and you can restrict network access.
You move changes back to your workdir using diff and apply, so you choose which changes to keep.
I use it for all my agentic work, and couldn't go back to using Claude without it.
This is to be expected. There's a definite split in the engineering community between those who are embracing AI, and those who are rejecting it. It's now become political, like systemd and wayland.
Even people who are actively embracing it don't want to have 95% of all submissions in most dev-related subs be LLM-adjancent. There are separate subreddits for that, just like there are subreddits about MacOS and Linux specifically, despite a huge number of devs using those OSes.
Also, most discussions about AI / LLMs on career or general programming subreddits are not what I would call productive. I _want_ new useful information about this topic, but I know I won't get it as things are right now.
That's a stretch. Most early "gambling" was a way of putting the choice to the gods.
reply