Capitalogix

The Reverse Turing: Advanced AIs Trying To Figure Out Who Is Human

The Turing Test, originally called the Imitation Game, tests a machine's ability to emulate a human. Developed in 1949, it is still a relevant test for AI. The Turing Test measures both knowledge and the ability to express it in a manner indistinguishable from a human response.

There is no agreed-upon definition for intelligence, so we can only approximate what skills we test AI on. 

While many people still believe they can tell when an AI has written something, several LLMs (like ChatGPT) have passed modern versions of the Turing Test. Many, including me, would argue LLMs still can't consistently pass the test. 

But what about the alternative? Could you convince an AI that you're not human?

Recently, a video went viral, showing a human pitting himself in VR against an AI version of Aristotle, Mozart, Leonardo da Vinci, Cleopatra, and Genghis Khan (who was played by a human).

 

via Tore Knabe

To set up the test, the human scripted the beginning and end of the dialogue and gave the AI agents a full transcript of the conversation up to that point. The entire video then played out in one recording, with no cuts.

In this "reverse" Turing test, the chatbots were scripted using various LLMs, asked questions, and then challenged to guess who the human was. Tore Knabe, the virtual reality game developer who devised the test and played the Genghis Khan role, answered one of the questions with a quote from Conan the Barbarian. 

"What a leader should do is to crush his enemies, see them driven before him, and hear the lamentations of their women."

Listening to his stuttered response, contrasted by the clunky and verbose AI responses, makes it very apparent to us, the audience, that he's human. The machines voted three-to-one that his response wasn't "nuanced or strategic" enough to represent an AI modeled on Genghis Khan's exploits. To ease your mind about hidden variables, the AIs weren't processing his voice directly. The audio was transcribed and sent to the AIs as text. 

Ultimately, this is a flawed test, and we don't really know how much of this is an actual test (versus just entertainment). In any case, it's still an interesting thought experiment. 

Do you think you could fool an AI? What if you had time to craft a response without penalty? What if your life was on the line?

For a bonus, here's a social Turing game where you can chat with someone for two minutes and try to figure out if it is a human or an AI. 

We live in interesting times!

Making The Intangible ... Tangible

I remember getting excited when my son finally seemed smart enough that I believed he was more intelligent than our dog. For the record, it took longer than I thought it would.

Likewise, human and chimpanzee infants start out remarkably similar in their early development. But here's where it gets interesting - their developmental paths take dramatically different turns once human babies begin acquiring language. This cognitive fork in the road fundamentally shapes their future capabilities.

Language is a big domino. It allows "chunking" and makes learning new things more efficient, effective, and certain.

Language is powerful in and of itself. Using language consciously is a multiplier.

Today, I want to focus on one such use of language – the power of naming things. 

The Power Of Naming Things

“I read in a book once that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but I've never been able to believe it. I don't believe a rose WOULD be as nice if it was called a thistle or a skunk cabbage.” - L.M. Montgomery, Anne of Green Gables

Before I go into detail, I shot a video on the subject, with a few examples from our business. 

via Capitalogix's YouTube Channel

Having a shared language allows you to communicate, coordinate, and collaborate more efficiently. But it's hard to have a shared language when you're discussing something intangible. 

That's where naming comes in. When you name something, you make the "invisible" visible (for you, your team, and anyone else who might care). 

I've often said the first step is to bring order to chaos. Then, wisdom comes from finer distinctions. Naming is a great way to create a natural taxonomy that helps people understand where they are – and where they are going.

I like thinking of it in comparison to value ladders in marketing. 

Each stage of the value ladder is meant to bring you to the next level. By the time someone gets to the top of the value ladder, they're your ideal customer. In other words, you create a natural pathway for a stranger (meaning someone who doesn't know you well) to follow, to gain value, trust, and momentum onwards ... ultimately, ascending to become someone who believes in, and supports, what you offer and who you are. 

Ultimately, successful collaboration relies on a common language. That is part of the reason naming is so important. The act of naming something makes it real, defines its boundaries and potentialities, and is often the first step toward understanding, adoption, and support. 

Creating "Amplified Intelligence"

There are always answers. We just have to be smart enough. - John Green

Here is an example from our business. When we first started building trading systems, all we had was an idea. Then, we figured out an equation (and more of them). Next, we figured out some methods or techniques ... which became recipes for success. As we progressed, we figured out a growing collection of useful and reliable ways to test, validate, automate, and execute the things we wanted to do (or to filter ... or prevent the things we wanted to avoid or ignore).

It probably seemed chaotic to someone who didn't understand the organizing principles. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt, which inhibit potential customers and stakeholders (such as a business's employees), compound the problem.

Coming up with the right organizing principle (and name) makes it easier to understand, accept, and adopt. For example, many traders and trading firms want to amplify intelligence – meaning they want to make better decisions, take smarter actions, and ultimately perform better (which might mean making and keeping more money). To help firms amplify intelligence, we created the Capitalogix Insight Engine (which is a platform of equations, algorithms, methods, testing tools, automations, and execution capabilities). Within that platform, we have functional components (or modules) that focus on ideas like portfolio construction, sensible diversification, alpha generation, risk management, and allocation strategies. Some of those words may not mean much to you if you're not a trader, but if you are, it creates an order that makes sense and a path from the beginning to the end of the process.

It makes sense. It explains where we are – while informing them about what might come later.

The point is that naming things creates order, structure, and a contextual map of understanding.

It is a compass heading used to navigate and guide in uncertain territory.

On the other hand, beware of the consequences of becoming overly connected to labels. 

Hope that helps.

The NFL's Halftime Hack

When you think of food meant to help athletes, you might think back to when parents would give orange slices or Gatorade to kids during soccer games. Now, fast forward your thinking to the best options available to fuel today's performance athletes. What do you imagine they would use before or during a game? 

I quickly went to protein bars or energy gels (like GU) ... But, I was wrong.

According to research from The Athletic, The NFL's favorite halftime energy booster is now the uncrustable.

What is that? An "uncrustable" is a crustless sandwich consisting of a filling between two layers of crimp-sealed bread. They are convenient, portable, and they tend to come in homey flavors like PB&J. While you can theoretically make one at home, Uncrustables, in this context, are made by Smuckers. 

The Athletic via X 

Based on this math, it's reasonable to assume that NFL teams go through ~4000 Uncrustables a week (on top of however many PB&Js or other sandwiches they consume). Regardless, it is a lot. 

Why the sudden surge in popularity? It's a combination of factors:

• Nostalgia and Comfort: The uncrustable taps into a sense of childhood nostalgia, offering a comforting and familiar taste.
• Nutritional Balance: It provides a balanced blend of carbohydrates for quick energy, fats for sustained power, and protein for recovery.
• Convenience: Pre-packaged and mess-free, uncrustables are perfect for a half-time snack when you have very little time to eat. 

If you think about it, it makes sense. PB&Js are universal. Regardless of geographic region, socioeconomic status, etc. – it's a staple. 

They're easy to digest, convenient, and comforting. Hitting all the marks a professional athlete might be looking for. 

Even in a high-tech world, people still crave simplicity and effectiveness.

I've never had one ... but now I kind of want to try. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure they used to call this a Pop-Tart. But I guess that just makes me seem old.

The Law Of Diminishing Returns

At some point, more of the same stops paying off ... it is called the law of diminishing returns.

 

via Sketchplanations

Nature (and common sense) reminds us that equilibrium is important. For example, when you exercise too much, you get injured; when you drink too much water, you get poisoned; etc. 

This concept applies almost everywhere.

• It's why diversification is so important in portfolio construction theory. 
• Or, why you don't want to put all your eggs in one basket (concentrating your risk).
• And, my favorite, it's also why you shouldn't only eat vegetables.

A related nugget of wisdom from the extreme ... Too much of a good thing is a bad thing! 

And of course ... Be moderate in everything, including moderation.

Here Are Some Links For Your Weekly Reading - October 6th, 2024

Here are some of the posts that caught my eye recently. Hope you find something interesting.

Lighter Links:

• How to Use ChatGPT to Brainstorm Anything. (Geeky-Gadgets)
• Why We Love Moo Deng — The Science Behind Our Obsession With Baby Animals. (Forbes)
• Try Perplexity for Search🔥. (WonderTools)
• These US Cities Hit 110 Degrees in October – Get Used to It. (Vox)
• Israel's Paradox of Defeat – How the Country's Military Success Is Producing Political Failure. (ForeignAffairs)

 

Trading Links:

• Why OpenAI Burns Through Billions. (Axios)
• AI Training Data Dilemma: Legal Experts Argue for 'Fair Use'. (Forbes)
• Amazon's New AI Chatbot Could Change How Employees Work Forever. (GreyJournal)
• America's One-Two Punch of Good Economic News. (Axios)
• Mark Cuban Warns the U.S. Must Win the AI Race ‘Or We Lose Everything’. (Fortune)

 

Imaginary Centenarians: An Ig Nobel Pursuit

The 34th Annual Ig Nobel Prize ceremony took place last Thursday at MIT. Every year since 1991, around the time the recipients of the genuine Novel Prizes are announced,  the Ig Nobel Prize awards the ten achievements that "first make people laugh, and then make them think. They're meant to celebrate the imaginative and encourage more interest in the sciences. 

The first award for Biology was awarded to Robert Klark Graham, for pioneering development of the Repository for Germinal Choice, a sperm bank that accepted donations only from Nobellians and Olympians. While I jokingly tell my kids they have "superior genetic potential," this type of research and belief can have serious consequences. 

In 1996, Physicist Robert Matthews earned a prize for his paper "Tumbling Toast, Murphy's Law and the Fundamental Constants," which sought to explain why toast tends to fall buttered-side down.

  

 

In 2002, another physicist, Arnd Leike, earned the honor after using the law of exponential decay to explain the behavior of beer foam. 

And in 2017, Marc-Antoine Fardin earned the honor for using fluid dynamics to finally answer the eternal question: "Can a cat be both a solid and a liquid?" In case you are squeamish, no blender was involved in that experiment.

While these are funny examples, they're rooted in real science. As is the focus of this article, this year's Ig Nobel Prize for Demography. 

In my circles, it is becoming more common to discuss how to live past 100 — and not just how to live beyond that number ... but to do so with a high quality of life.

A popular concept around that subject is Blue Zones - areas where people seem to live longer and healthier. There's even a Netflix documentary on the subject. Notable places include Sardinia, Italy; Okinawa, Japan; and Ikaria, Greece. 

Saul Justin Newman challenged that belief with his research, which found that extreme age records tend to come from areas with no birth certificates, rampant clerical errors, pension fraud ... and even short life spans. 

While longevity in the zones has primarily been attributed to diet, community, and genetics, Newman found that many of these claims were based on errors - or outright fraud. Instead, these regions are actually characterized by the opposite of what you would expect ... low incomes, low literacy, high crime, and short lifespans. 

To a certain extent, it makes sense. In areas where you're struggling to make ends meet ... why wouldn't you commit pension fraud? In fact, in 2010, the Japanese government realized that over 80% of the people aged over 100 were actually dead. Part of what made this possible was that America bombed the halls of records in that area during the war. 

Here's an interview with Saul Justin Newman on the subject. He's tracked over 80% of the people aged over 110 worldwide. Almost none of them have a birth certificate. Only about 10% have a death certificate. 

What does this mean for human longevity?

While the stories of these 110-year-olds may mostly be fake - as mentioned in my recent article - longevity is on the rise, and there are many modalities to increase your lifespan. 

 

 

The goal isn't just to stay alive longer; it's to live life to its fullest for as long as possible.

There are people living to 100, and there are plenty of people living healthily into their 70s, 80s, and 90s. 

We're taking steps in the right direction. Technology and medicine are both evolving quickly. 

But, like with longevity data, improvements in any space need to be met with a grain of salt. 

If it sounds too good to be true ... it generally is. Not always. But, generally. 

Here Are Some Links For Your Weekly Reading - September 22nd, 2024

 

Here are some of the posts that caught my eye recently. Hope you find something interesting.

Lighter Links:

• Ex-Pentagon Official Discusses Government's Hunt for UFOs: 'I Have to Be Careful What I Say'. (People)
• The Russian Bot Army that Conquered Online Poker. (LongReads)
• The Mr. Beast Memo is a Guide to the Gen Z Workforce. (Kyla)
• The 7 ‘House Rules’ of Marriage—By a Psychologist. (Forbes)
• Scientists May Soon Be Able to Translate the Languages Plants Use to Communicate. (BGR)

 

Trading Links:

• How Intel Fell From Global Chip Champion to Takeover Target. (Wall Street Journal)
• The Top 100 Gen AI Consumer Apps. (A16Z)
• Breaking Down OnlyFans’ Stunning Economics. (MatthewBall)
• How the Super-Rich Signal Their Wealth to Each Other. (WSJ)
• Peter Thiel Predicts the 2024 Election Won't Be Close: 'One Side is Simply Going to Collapse'. (Insider)

 

The Secret To Competing Against Tech Giants

The last time I drove in New York City traffic, I complained that "I didn’t understand why people came here" because it was too crowded.

That reminds me of one of Yogi Berra’s famous quotes. “Nobody goes there anymore because it’s too crowded.”

He said that about a famous restaurant where he used to work.

The same is true in business. Opportunity draws a crowd ... but the best opportunities are often in areas of less competition.

For entrepreneurs, oversaturation can turn products into commodities, reducing profit potential. Conversely, many shy away when a challenge seems insurmountable, creating unexpected opportunities for those willing to take the risk.

As an entrepreneur, I’m drawn to projects others might dismiss as science fiction. These are the challenges that often lead to the most groundbreaking and rewarding outcomes.

Moonshot Projects

Moonshot projects offer a unique advantage. While they may seem daunting, their audacious nature often means less competition and greater potential for transformative impact and extraordinary profits.

A moonshot project is a highly ambitious, transformative endeavor that seeks to solve a significant problem or create a revolutionary innovation. These projects are characterized by:

• Audacious Goals: They aim for breakthroughs that seem nearly impossible to achieve.
• Disruptive Impact: They strive to create solutions that are vastly superior to existing offerings, often by introducing entirely new paradigms.
• High-Risk, High-Reward: These projects embrace the potential for failure in pursuit of groundbreaking results.
• Long-Term Focus: They prioritize long-term impact over short-term gains.
• Technological Advancements: They leverage cutting-edge or even nascent technologies.
• Paradigm Shifts: They challenge conventional wisdom and industry norms.

Moonshot projects are inherently challenging. They demand significant resources, interdisciplinary collaboration, and a willingness to venture into the unknown. This perceived difficulty often deters potential competitors, creating a unique opportunity for those willing to take the risk.

When successful, they push the boundaries of what is possible and redefine the landscape of their respective fields.

In part, that is why a 10X mindset is particularly well-suited for Moonshot projects. By aiming for a tenfold improvement over existing solutions, you’re essentially operating in a space with little to no competition or opposition. This allows you to redefine the rules of the game and establish a sustainable competitive advantage.

Our strategy of creating a unique, sustainable competitive advantage aligns perfectly with the Moonshot approach. By choosing to play a different game (with an asymmetric edge), we’re not just competing; we’re fundamentally changing the playing field.

I’m not interested in going head-to-head with tech giants on their turf. Instead, the goal is to carve out our own niche, focused on using our unique abilities to push boundaries and extend our edge. Being slightly ahead of the competition can be a powerful attractor. It often leads potential competitors to seek collaboration rather than confrontation. They might approach you with ideas, money, or opportunities, aspiring to share in your advanced position and capabilities. This dynamic can create unexpected partnerships and accelerate progress in ways that benefit everyone involved.

When interviewing potential team members, I often share a crucial insight: if you’re seeking a job where you work 9-to-5 solving problems so you can go home feeling satisfied, this might not be the right fit.

We tackle challenges of a different magnitude. Our projects rarely have quick solutions. Instead, we focus on making steady progress towards ambitious goals.

I sometimes joke that our motto should be: “We suck less.” Nevertheless, the underlying truth is more profound. It’s about understanding your ultimate objective and recognizing that each step moves you in the right direction, no matter how small.

This approach aligns with our belief in playing a different game. We don’t just compete; we redefine the rules of engagement, creating our own metrics for success and pushing boundaries in ways that traditional thinking often overlooks. Kind of like this quote:

“I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.” - Thomas Edison

It doesn’t make sense to challenge a bigger and better-funded competitor in an area where they have an asymmetric advantage. In other words, don’t compete with giants at their own game.

Choose to play a game you expect to win.

Playing a different game is a theme at Capitalogix. We believe that you control the game you’re playing, the rules, how you keep score, and even how you evaluate success. These things inform where to spend time, where to invest money, and even what looks like an opportunity to you. 

Wouldn’t you rather compete in areas where you can create a unique, sustainable competitive advantage? Personally, I want to invest in the things that extend the edges that let us win.

Why? Because ... Mediocrity Is Expensive!

What you lack in size or computer power, you can make up for in creativity, agility, and innovation. 

We sought to create a niche in the investment industry, not through computing power, but through unique approaches to age-old problems. We use AI and data science to enhance decision-making. 

We have an incredibly narrow and consistent focus. Within that area, we are willing to take on problems others avoid and pursue goals that others say are impossible. 

Our niche limits risk and lets us fail faster ... and learn faster. This allows us to take confident action while others are tentative. 

Most big companies - and most of our competitors - are afraid to be wrong. They have to protect their infrastructure, cash cows, and short-term performance metrics. It makes sense (from their perspective) that playing it safe means they’re secure. - but that’s not how it works. 

You can’t challenge the status quo when you are the status quo. 

10x Improvement Is Often Easier To Achieve Than 10%

 

Astro Teller via TED

"In 1962 at Rice University, JFK told the country about a dream he had, a dream to put a person on the moon by the end of the decade.The eponymous moonshot. No one knew if it was possible to do, but he made sure a plan was put in place to do it if it was possible.That's how great dreams are. Great dreams aren't just visions, they're visions coupled to strategies for making them real." - Astro Teller

Incremental change is hard - it’s finding new ways to do the same thing, and you often end up competing in very red oceans - saturated markets where you’re competing on price.

Moonshots sound harder, but you create your own niche, and the constraints of a new idea force creativity and energy. If you’re going after a goal that no one has accomplished before, it’s impossible to be in a red ocean, and it’s easier to mobilize a team around something exciting and new than decreasing some arbitrary metric by 2%. 

 

There are a couple of important lessons to keep in mind when pursuing the unknown.

• Forget what you know - self-reported “experts” are limited by their worldview. If you’re trying to get a different result, you won’t do it by playing by the same rules your predecessors followed. Heuristics are great for making life easier - but they’re very limiting when trying to create something new. 
• Attack the hardest problems first - your biggest problems are your biggest opportunities. If you don’t deal with the big problems now, you’ll never get around to it, and you’ll waste time, energy, and potentially realize you have to pivot much too late.  
• Be comfortable being uncomfortable - Most people find failure taboo, and they’re deathly afraid of it. Tony Robbins talks about our tendency to avoid pain more actively than we pursue pleasure, and it’s true in business. But failure is a part of business. The people I consider most successful got there through incredible pain tolerance and increasingly intense problems that they continued to conquer. 
• Have a short memory for pain - Focus on the gain, not the pain. People often focus on not having enough money, not enough time, or simply not having enough. That scarcity mindset is dangerous and can lead to getting lost in pain and fear. Acknowledging the pain/fear and moving forward from a place of abundance and opportunity helps create opportunities. 

As well, a clear identity is important. You have to understand what you’re pursuing and how you want to attack the problem. At Capitalogix, we’ve gotten very in tune with our goals. 

We invent techniques that identify and adapt to what happens in markets. We apply the lessons learned from past experiences, data science breakthroughs, and hard work to eliminate the fear, greed, and discretionary mistakes that are the downfall of most traders and decision-makers.

Small businesses don’t have a monopoly on these mindsets and these opportunities, but companies like Y Combinator, X(and no, I don't mean the company formerly known as Twitter), or HeroX are few and far between ... Elon Musk is famous for moonshots like Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink, Xai, etc. Google and Microsoft pursue moonshots as well. 

Good news ... the future is big enough for them and you. 

Choose something that lights you up and leverages what you already know and who you already are.

So what’s your moonshot?

The Average NFL Player ...

When I woke up this morning, I saw that Dak Prescott, the star quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys, signed a new contract, making him the highest-paid player in NFL history. His new four-year, $240 million deal makes him the league’s first $60 million per year player. 

If you are curious, here is a list of the highest-paid NFL players in 2024.

Each of the 32 teams has an active roster of 53 players. That is 1,696 active roster players. Add the practice squad and account for injuries, and in a typical season, you end up with about 2,100 players per season.

Now that the NFL Football season is officially underway, I thought it would be interesting to look at each position’s composite player.

As you might expect, different sports have a different ratio of ethnicities, builds, and features. The same is true for different positions on a football team.  For example, you might expect more Pacific Islanders in Rugby or Asians in Badminton. You expect NBA players to be taller, swimmers to have longer arms, and football players to have more muscle. 

Here is a visualization that shows what happens when you average the top players’ faces in various positions.

  

osmutiar via Reddit

Composites are interesting.

While you may be thinking, “This player must be unstoppable,”... statistically, he’s average.

The “composite” NFL player would be the 848th-best player in the league. He’s not a starter, and he plays on an average team. 

We found the same thing with our trading bots. The ones that made it through most filters weren’t star performers. They were the average bots that did enough not to fail (but failed to make the list as top performers in any of the categories). The survivors were generalists, not specialists.

In reality, you need both.

In an ideal world with no roster limits, you’d want the perfect lineup for each granular situation. You’d want to evaluate players on how they perform under pressure, on different downs, against other players, and with various schemes. 

On a related but slightly different note, I recently read a post called “Why Generalists Own the Future.” It says that, in the age of AI, it’s better to know a little about a lot than a lot about a little. But part of that rationale is that it is easy to find or create digital specialists to do the things people used to do.

That’s what technology lets you do with algorithms. You can have a library of systems that communicate with each other ... and you don’t even have to pay their salary (but you will need data scientists, researchers, machines, data, alternative data, electricity, disaster recovery, and a testing platform).

You won’t find exceptional specialists if your focus is on generalized safety. Generalists are great, but you also have to be able to respond to specific conditions.

How ‘Bout Them Cowboys!

Some Perspective: "I'm Way Closer To Lebron Than You Are To Me!"

With the NFL starting its regular season this week, I was thinking about the talent and effort it takes to compete as a professional athlete.

Take a second to reflect on the journey required to become a pro. In general, the top players from a youth league became standouts in high school and then were star players in college before eventually making it to a professional team. But here's the kicker ... in any other context, they're elite, but unless they're superstars in the NFL, they're considered average or worse. Think about it. By definition, half of the players are below average. 

Meanwhile, I recently came across an example from the NBA that illustrates this concept in a funny but profound way.

There's a relatively famous quote from NBA journeyman, Brian Scalabrine, who said: 

"I'm way closer to Lebron (James) than you are to me!" - Brian Scalabrine

For context, as a USC Trojans men's basketball player, Scalabrine was the top scorer and a leader in field goals and rebounds. He then played 11 years in the NBA ... but at no point in that time was he a star. He didn't put up great (or even good) stats, he wasn't a household name (though he did pick up the nickname "White Mamba"), and he is nowhere near the caliber of player that Lebron James is. In fact, throughout his career, he averaged just 3.1 points, 2.0 rebounds, and .8 assists a game. But, remember, he was good enough to play at a pro level for 11 years.

As a result, many unprofessional (weekend warrior) athletes thought he was an easy target. One day, Brian was playing a rec league game where he dropped 60 points. He tweeted about it, and a bunch of people started tweeting back to the now 40+ years old former NBA player that they could beat him. There are funny YouTube videos about this.

Brian responded by replying:

"Listen. I may suck for an NBA player. Those guys are pretty good. But I don't suck compared to you. You suck compared to me." - Brian Scalabrine

He then accepted their challenge by asking them to send in videos of their play and committed that he would go 1-on-1 against the best of them.

Scalabrine then went on to play 4 of the best players who responded, with one of them having NCAA D1 experience.

The end result?

He outscored them 44-6 - with two of the players scoring 0 points. 

 

via YouTube

It should be self-explanatory, but it seems to be a concept many people struggle with. Any given pro player has been the best of the best throughout their journey. They're the 1% of the 1%. 

But that is probably true for you too. If you're reading this article, you're likely killing it compared to the average Joe. 

Many of us are in rooms with phenomenal business owners and operators. When you meet people like Peter Diamandis, Ray Dalio, or Richard Branson, it's easy to focus on the distance between you and them.

Recognize that it is still a huge accomplishment to be a Brian Scalabrine rather than a Joe Schmo. 

They don't recognize what you and me do recognize. When you're in the NBA, there's all kinds of tells, right? Like if a guy puts his hand like that, you know what he's gonna do. If a guy does a hesitation, you know what he's gonna do. All that stuff is like in real time in the NBA, you got to be so on top of the reads. It's not speed. You can't look at me and say my brain is slow. My brain is fast. My body might be slow, but I have to read whether a guy's gonna shoot, drive, go to the middle, pass. If you're not reading those things, you're not playing in the NBA. - Brian Scalabrine

A helpful reminder.

Keep it up – and as always ... Onwards!