Solving the Dating Problem with the SENPAI Protocol [pdf]
sigtbd.csail.mit.edu
sigtbd.csail.mit.edu
Given two socially well adjusted participants it allows either party to back down without hurting the other parties feelings and allows everyone to save face. The person escalating the flirtation doesn't feel bad because they aren't outright denied and the respondee isn't put in the awkward situation of having to deny someone.
It also has the added benefit of allowing each person to get to know each other better and figure out if they actually have real 'chemistry' to begin with. Furthermore, attraction isn't binary, you might initially start chatting with someone with the intention of escalating the flirting process but figure out, hey, I just want to be friends with this person! With the SENPAI protocol you might just end up in an ill fated relationship with your would be friend
2.4 The Start Out As Friends Protocol The Start Out As Friends Protocol (SOAP), as presented by [9], is summarized in Figure 1. In this protocol, Alice and Bob participate in many exchanges over a long period, transferring pieces of information that provide only incremental evidence of their responses. Over time, each party can become more and more confident in the other’s answer, until the probability of a mismatch is low enough that a JMAP exchange becomes feasible. Unfortunately, the runtime of this protocol may be inordinately long in some cases, and deriving evidence from the individual transmissions can be difficult. There are also highly complex failure modes when dealing with a malicious adversary, as Munroe illustrates in his paper.
[9] R. Munroe. Friends. May 2008. https://xkcd.com/513/
Flirting does not require that you first be friends with someone and certainly doesn't require a runtime of many months. A successful flirtation can happen within a few minutes.
So non-socially-well-adjusted, raised-on-the-internet types shouldn't get to date? Your comment is tautological and merely says that people who are good at dating are good at dating.
It's 2016, homophobia should be shunned anyway.
There is no IT solution that we could come up with to change this and it wouldn't even be desirable in the first place.
Sexual selection has the purpose to ensure that only people with desirable traits get to breed and while it isn't perfect it is my opinion that it still is the best process known to us.
Tinder has worked well for some people I know
It's funny how high production skills are forcefully shared but there is little effort to even try to share social skills. If anything, being socially awkward is met with scorn. Maybe we should swap the name to socially poor and people would have some pity
Of course everyone should try hard to do this.
> It's funny how high production skills are forcefully shared but there is little effort to even try to share social skills.
What skills are forcefully shared? And how can you possibly share social skills? Or are you suggesting that government should allocate sexual partners to everyone? I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.
The bottom line is that most could significantly improve their social skills and confidence but many chose to live in denial because the first step is frightening and actually the hardest part. You just have to practice this skill like everything else in life and learn to not take judgement of others too serious.
My actual point is that society says we should help those who wasted an education by giving up part of our lives (income tax is a time tax on the average worker), but society says that someone who wasted their teen years not developing social skills is just a loser. This is a troubling view.
If one considers a concept of social wealth then there seems to be a resource transfer from the financially well off to the socially well off without a response in kind.
In the worst case consider a child who was bullied and turned to tech, who gained financially useful tech skills but missed out on social skills. Once they grow into an adult they are then taxed to support those who picked on the 'geeks and nerds' and who scorned education in favor of social standing among their peers. So the bullies get to enjoy financial support and the dividends of their social skills while the 'geeks and nerds' get only the dividends of their financial skills. Seems we should either provide relevant welfare for both or neither... but if one side is going to be better at pushing a position that is to their advancement I can guess which.
And of course this doesn't account for millions of nuances in each individual life that are exceptions, like the child who couldn't learn because they were too focused on their hunger.
Maybe we can start by considering those without social skills as socially poor instead of just losers.
"So people who never play football shouldn't get to score goals?"
Similarly, I think there are a lot of people who are bad at flirting but would make good romantic partners for the people they're interested in. But being bad at flirting means they often don't get a chance to demonstrate the other qualities they could bring to a relationship.
There are also many issues with unintentional signalling.
My view is that it is not in the interest of women (who mostly do the selecting while men do the approaching) to use a process for selection that obfuscates if the approaching person is socially adept or not.
It is maybe just my experience, but generally women do know which men are interested and which are not, even if the male didn't make an approach yet.
If you've managed to convince someone to procreate with you (and multiple times at that, apparently), then you're by definition socially adept.
But socially poorly-adjusted folks want love too!
I am in love with the honesty in this.
ZKP still provides the property that cheating will be detected, which is all that is required to satisfy the papers security definition.
I love this
A common trope in Japanese medium is that a character will have a crush on a senpai (equivalent to a prefect or hall monitor in that context), only for them to be utterly oblivious to it.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SempaiKohai
This is a witty paper, as other commenters are noting.
Not just in school. In work situations as well. Note that this is no real equivalent for the opposite (there is Kouhai but it's not used at all in the same way).
They're really not that different.
Really? I thought use of a bare name was only for intimate relationships.
Not only. Even at work you can refer to your colleagues without the honorific -san in some specific contexts.
Examples: Toradora!, Golden time, Kokoro connect, White Album 2, ... to name the most popular ones.
Those that don't feature a love triangle (Ore Monogatori!, Lovely Complex, Kimi ni Todoke,... ) don't have sempais either.
I simply can't remember a romcom anime in which the sempai relationship plays a significant role, if present at all. In any case, that's not a dominant trope in the genre.
If MAL wasn't for whatever reason blocked by my work's filter I'm sure I could come up with 10+ more from relatively popular shows (Monogatari, Beyond the Boundary, and K-On! being the most popular)
"In terms of pop culture however, senpai is a word that has taken on a life of its own. Now it seems that everyone and their uncle on both sides of the Pacific are throwing the word around like it's nothing at all. Anyone who is slightly older than you might or might not have a crush on is now being referred to as senpai. Will it become yet another buzz word that invades popular culture in the west? It's certainly possible." [0]
Anyway. Calling it the "BAKA protocol" would have fit more in more than one way.
[0] http://myanimelist.net/featured/645/Senpai_and_Kouhai_Relati...
There is the whole "Notice me senpai" meme that is making the rounds among the trendy youths, I hear.
1. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-hope-senpai-will-notice-me
Beautifully done.
As is noted in [1], if Alice simply suggests to Bob that
they carry out a SENPAI exchange, this in and of itself is
indicative of interest on Alice’s part. Thus, the only nonawkward
way to actually use the SENPAI protocol is to
assemble large groups of people, and have every pair of
people carry out the protocol.Sure, it could backfire: interested parties may fall victims of the universe's Random Number Generator, but it makes for some interesting Game Theory dynamics, which I call the Tinder Card Stack Dilemma.
Any one party could be more willing to express interest in any of the other parties (assigned by STB), if they believe there is a low chance of them being matched with someone else they are more interested in.
On the other hand, they could become more picky, and only express interest in parties they are very interested in, rejecting others because they believe there is a high chance of them being matched with greater interests.
There is a definite trade off between efficiency and overall population happiness when choosing between STB and the solution described in the paper. Because STB is more efficient, it ends up being way more scale-able. But bigger populations greatly intensify the TCSD.
Alice and Bob should each
learn the logical AND of their
responses, and nobody should
learn any other information
"Submissions are double blind and author names must be removed. On the published copy, authors must be ordered by descending number of vowels."
This paper from the same conference also looks good:
http://sigtbd.csail.mit.edu/pubs/veryconference-paper5.pdf
"Locally Bijective, Non-Noetherian, Ultra-Liouville Random Variables and Parabolic Lie Theory"
"Good" as in "it was probably generated by an LSTM RNN".
Full papers listing here:
http://sigtbd.csail.mit.edu/pubs/
And main conference page:
For the benefit of other July fools like me :0
P.S.
This one is of special interest to me: Evident Logic, a logic programming language based on a new logic, made special by "not the rules that it has, but the rules it lacks, so we wish the reader good luck in figuring that out":
If you are using LaTeX to typeset your paper, then we strongly suggest that you use this LaTeX class file (with the ‘sigtbd’ class option) and template. If you are using Microsoft Word, we recommend you give up on following any of the formatting requirements and submit in whatever format you please.
Update: a solution that satisfies being practical to organise and that lets you talk to all participants
Update2: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/55439/gay-speed-dati...
If your dancers are some mixture of male/female/het/homo/bi such that you don't have a complete graph or other easy problem then you may need to have a computer-augmented dance caller.
Man, this paper is golden!
It seems like their modification to Aaronson's algorithm would also work for Yao's garbled circuits, i.e.
1. Alice generates a long random bitstring s, and publishes hash(s)
2. Alice crafts a garbled circuit with just one AND gate, where the false output is 0+s, and the true output is 1. Alice sends the circuit and her input to Bob.
3. Bob gets his input from Alice using oblivious transfer. He evaluates the circuit, publishing the result.
4. If the result starts with 0, Bob verifies that hash of the rest of the string matches the hash published by Alice. Alice also checks to make sure the rest of the string matches her original s.
For the 2PC case this problem was solved way back in the 1980s Andrew Yao.
However, logic may only be used if a common GND is accepted. If Alice does not believe in absolute truth, there is no way that trust can be established. Analogue systems may not approach 1, only digital logic can provide "TRUE" love.
Moral relativism is commonly professed. However, I theorise that an absolute 0 point can be readily established.
"Is cheating in relationships always wrong?"
If a common GND cannot be established this way, then the crush may be ended without wasting more time running the simulation.
The problem is there's no real disincentive just to say 'yes' to everyone, just to see who said yes back. Kind of like always swiping right on Tinder (although I'm sure they punish you for that in some way).
SIGTBD's emphases includes innovative, elegant (to the point of simplicity) and creative approaches for solving problems that are not traditionally served by the academic community. These problem spaces may be obsolete or unrealistic even by academic standards and are often of debatable research taste.
The entire site hosting this is hilarious - it appears to be an April Fools parody of an academic tech conference and it's very well executed. "Submissions are double blind and author names must be removed. On the published copy, authors must be ordered by descending number of vowels." reply
MIT, never change.
the former is 'big', the latter is 'many'
Incidently, an MFP like service already exists for this usecase [0].