So having a simplified explanation for dreary, low-information noise (“they’re all NPCs”) is actually the only way to combine curiosity and disciplinehttps://twitter.com/ashwinning/status/1057775541477089280 …
-
-
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
this example fails in that most people will prefer television programs over watching static
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
the tv playing random channels is hinting at something about what humans do, but minimizing expectation is not what humans do
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fire__exit @QuasLacrimas
an agent which minimizes expectation would find random static even better than random channels
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @fire__exit
right but we have frames such that we pre-process static as “static” (regardless of pixel states) whereas we don’t process permutations of relations states between, say, batters and bases that way
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
i think that's only bc the static doesn't give any information, so there's no reason to consider it beyond "this is static"
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @fire__exit
right but that begs the question of how we know static contains no information... you can use static as rng sees to make intriguing visual patterns
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
(so same info, different eval) - the AI agent isn’t using any innate heuristics so he wouldn’t miss hidden info in a screen but neither would he know to avoid this
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.