reroute1

The paper mentions not using illusions and summons because of the added technical complexity required to make them work:

"We removed these to avoid the added technical complexity of enabling the agent to control multiple units."

So maybe it could be to their advantage, but it's also not something that could be easily technically accomplished at this time?

> "By defeating theDota 2 world champion (Team OG), OpenAI Five demonstrates that self-play reinforcementlearning can achieve superhuman performance on a difficult task."

Isn't this a bit of a leap though, it came with massive caveats to the game:

1. Drafted from a 17 hero pool. 17 out of 115??

2. No summons or illusions. Again drastically reduce possibilities in game.

3. This AI is trained against real players for years, so it has enormous experience against this type of opponent. The opposite applies to humans who never compete against bots, so have no experience against this type of opponent. If I recall correctly the more people played against the bots the better humans performed in successive games. Winning two games with all these restrictions and caveats is still impressive, but it feels like they overstate things. Not to mention the flawless mechanics and communication between the bots...

Do you know examples of these services? What can you search for that does this?

Maybe it's not an issue for everyone? Maybe the bounce rates on average aren't that bad and some people are spending lots of time there? It's possible, but I agree they aren't very user-friendly in search results for someone who doesn't have an account. I also avoid them.

I understand, but it's referencing the environment in a workplace that applies to both sexes not just women. Her complaint may have also applied to the men there, so really we should get both sides opinion shouldn't we?

Let's think liberally and not confine this concept to a strict acronym that seems overly narrow

You mean Ask People? What does any of that have to do with being a woman? Just blanket 'patriarchy bs'?

So in that case you are essentially using their products, because their software and services power lots of other services. There are alternatives, I just don't care enough to pursue them. Who cares if someone has tracked my data I like having the internet the way it is.

Right but you just mentioned siri, which is included on every iphone. People do carry that around and don't expect it to be listening.

What if your idea of proper is different then that countries laws?

You're right it's not anyones business, but in reality it's still not going to be anyones but yours. Unless there is some breach that or bad actor and but as mentioned that could just as easily be done to your phone.

So the websites you visit use their service then?

Mood, Affect, setting... I think these are well defined terms. That is what's meant by headspace. However it's not legal to test this in conjunction with illegal drugs, even scientifically they can't get approval in many cases.

The thing about that is it's hard to not have anecdotal evidence about a phenomenon when the item of study is an illegal drug. That doesn't mean there is no effect though and this one seems very logical. Also not exactly the same but you don't need to try it with schedule one psychedelics this can be noticed with things like alcohol

OK, but by this definition of "willful deception" all social media companies and related engineering jobs can be lumped into a "repugnant" category?

I think that is reductive of engineers opinions for one, and over-stating the behavior of these companies. How are people being deceived? Are they being lied to in the privacy agreements? That would be obviously deceptive and I can agree they should be transparent, but it's very public that data is part of the revenue generation for these places nowadays.

I think if people just expect to have a free service and give nothing up in return that isnt really a reasonable expectation anymore, so I don't find it deceptive or repugnant. Maybe there is an alternative where social media platforms don't rely on personal data and advertisements and I'd be all for that, but it doesn't exist now.

How are they abusing privacy? Because it doesn't align with your views of privacy that constitutes abuse? You may have an expectation of privacy and we can argue whether or not that is valid. (not really IMO, facebook doesn't owe you anything for using their service. What a private company does with their service is really not abuse)

Lying to the govt. is pretty vague. What lie in particular are you referring to?

Except for all those moderation jobs, and everyday office jobs, oh wait are they just people too and not "1%ers" ???

Repugnant is entirely your opinion and there are lots of people who disagree with you. It might be an amazing opportunity for some.

Wasn't instagram just recently experimenting with not showing the number of likes?

He.

He's talking about the WeWork guy, not the theranos woman. I think it's a strange sentence, but technically correct.

"Some of the websites Google appears to have targeted in Google News were conservative sites and blogs, according to documents reviewed by the Journal."

That is so vague and unsubstantiated. I don't come to that conclusion from looking at this article. How easy is it to replace conservative with liberal? It seems very likely.

No my counter is that the Google site posted above which started this has very little in common with "radical left identity politics"

You just linked 'diversity' to left and far-left, isn't that the same thing that started this side thread? How is that site linked with activism or left politics? You mentioned a "pretty clear" connection.

I could just as easily say it's a decision for the economics of the company and you're projecting your own politics into that, confusing capitalism with left/right? But you know your example is a political decision pushed by the company? The same company that sometimes pushes the opposite political message? You're assertions are lacking consistency

> Google and most SV companies are somewhere between left to far-left.

1) Completely contradicts what you said earlier above

2) How? When does it stop being people and start being a corp? Aren't the decisions made by employees?

3) So? You just linked 'diversity' to left and far-left, isn't that the same thing that started this side thread? How is that site linked with activism or left politics? You mentioned a "pretty clear" connection.

So Google is a ' left to far left' company except when it's being 'right to far right' sometimes?

Internet search isn't Google News, there are countless news outlets. Google News is still not radically political leaning and just an aggregator. None that implement any sane blacklisting could be completely bias free anyhow... It is logical and not censorship

I think it's nothing like censorship. They aren't restricting anyone's free speech. It is Google's platform and within their right to control the content displayed outside of organic search, in fact it's necessary. That's like saying the Wall Street Journal is censoring all my articles I submit to them they don't publish.

If they were referencing organic search doesn't that hold true? They are blacklisting separate curated services such as google news. Either way if they lied about it of course that is bad, transparency is the way to gain public trust. I'm not sure if it was violated by that hearing in particular, but if they aren't blacklisting organic results I don't really see an issue.

Isn't literally everything inferior to what COULD exist?

They are classifying results as featured or news. That is a judgement call. Those other sites still return in organic search results. You are mad because they didn't judge your political leanings to be news? It feels ridiculous to expect Google to not make judgements like this and they cannot please everyone. Sure some people won't like it, but in general their news results are solid and don't have an agenda.