136 karma · joined June 22, 2017
Then that includes the employees and executives at Amazon and is all the more reason to not allow them to punish others for behavior that is (according to you) universal.
OP was not speaking in the ML testing context, hence the misunderstanding.
https://www.youtube.com/@futureunity5129/videos
Sort by "Popular" and you'll see that their most watched videos have consistently low like/dislike ratios yet are still being actively recommended. If you use Youtube's search feature, these same channels and videos will come up long before the actually informative channels do.
You could argue it's been helping Youtube by wasting viewer's time and making them watch extra ads but its certainly not helping the viewers find what they're looking for. Even mass reporting the channels doesn't seem to stop them.
This is circular reasoning. You're calling something a "review bomb" because you're assuming from the outset that its not widely disliked, despite the large amount of negative reviews suggesting it is in fact widely disliked.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/return-youtub...
4,000,000+ users on chrome with 14k reviews. Maybe you are mistaking the review count for the user count?
Even if it were just 0.0003% that's still the same sampling rate as the average Gallup poll using 1000 people to represent the USA's 300,000,000+ population.
Passing a ToM test is not what OP meant by having an "underlying theory of mind." OP's talking about the machine having an underlying mind (ie sentience, sapience, consciousness, etc), ToM tests are only testing output.
> You said "Those tasks could be completed a [sic] traditional static program.", and no, they can't. You're incorrect.
They can, a static program as I described would indeed answer that one question correctly, resulting in a positive ToM score, without seeing any training data whatsoever. Did the programmer see it? Maybe, but the machine didn't and it would pass the test regardless.