Maybe an Engineer filming that absolute failure of mechanical design. Seriously, that is the dumbest automated pickup system ever. It achieves exactly 0 efficiency goals.

Good news, her go fund me goal has been met.

This looks a lot like Trump's future goals for the US, as he takes any wealth from the middle class and hands it to the wealthy corporations. There is no mistaking who is really benefiting from Trumps decisions and policies. and it's not you.

Have I said any such things? I certainly don't recall saying any of that.
You must note, however, that the overreaction you get from some people likely stems from attempts to shame them using exaggeration, hyperbole, and even outright lies, which tend to make enemies to your cause rather than converts. I've never met a vegan that didn't operate that way to some degree. Perhaps those people are just giving back the same level of honest discussion and discourse they received. There's apparently something about veganism that makes it's practitioners think their movement is more important that fact and truth, like the "Dr." (and his followers) who claimed eating any amount of any red meat is just as carcinogenic as smoking a pack a day of cigarettes, citing WHO studies that said nothing of the sort. Many have said "If you agree with my goal, stopping animal suffering, why would you contradict my claims, even though I privately agree they're exaggeration and fantasy?". Ends don't justify means imo, and nothing justifies lying.

I don't need a degree in nutrition or to be a dietitian to understand the basics covered in multiple health classes I've passed and multiple scientific studies I've read. Is meat healthy? Yes....if it's raised and prepared properly and eaten in moderation. Is meat unhealthy? Yes...when eaten excessively or prepared unsafely.
Is veganism healthy? Yes....when practiced properly with a balanced diet that has all the nutrients humans need. Is veganism unhealthy? Yes...it is the way it's practiced by most vegans who don't have a grasp on what proper nutrition is. It's definitely harder to have a balanced healthy diet without any animal products, but isn't impossible.

Once again, I feel you are being fast and loose with fact by implying any of those statements have come from me. The only people I expect to die 6 times in a row are the ones in my dungeon that I'm keeping alive to prolong their torture....and they know what they did to deserve it. ;-)

I'm just saying I like being clear/careful to distinguish between emotional, moral and factual argumentation.

If the subject were instead vaccinations, you could as easily have a child pitching an anti-vax message and pleading with the world to listen to the 'facts' that they present. It might make people more willing to listen, but it should NOT change our assessment of the accuracy of the facts.

Supplanting argument from emotion, authority and various other subjective/flawed approaches is THE defining advantage of the scientific method. Blurring that line is damaging, regardless of the intentions or goals.

This isn't really true though and greatly understates how amazing this demo, and current AI actually is.

Saying the agents are obeying a set of human defined rules / freedoms / constraints and objective functions would lead one to imagine something more like video game AI.

Typically video game AI works on a set of weighted decisions and actions, where the weights, decisions and actions are defined by the developer; a more complex variation of:

if my health is low, move towards the health pack,
otherwise, move towards the opponent

In this demo, no such rules exist. It's not given any weights (health), rules (if health is low), nor any instructions (move towards health pack). I guess you could apply neural networks to traditional game AI to determine the weights for decision making (which are typically hard coded by the developer); but that would be far less interesting than what's actually happening here.

Instead, the agent is given a set of inputs, a set of available outputs, and a goal.

4 Inputs:
- Position of the agent itself
- Position and type (other agent, box, ramp) of objects within a limited forward facing conical view
- Position (but not type) of objects within a small radius around the agent
- Reward: Whether they are doing a good job or not

Note the agent is given no information about each type of object, or what they mean, or how they behave. You may as well call them A, B, C rather than agent, box, ramp.

3 Outputs:
- Move
- Grab
- Lock

Again, the agent knows nothing about what these mean, only that they can enable and disable each at any time. A good analogy is someone giving you a game controller for a game you've never played. The controller has a stick and two buttons and you figure out what they do by using them. It'd be accurate to call the outputs: stick, A, B rather than move, grab, lock.

Goal:
- Do a good job.

The goal is simply for the reward input to be maximised. A good analogy is saying 'good girl' or giving a treat to a dog that you are training when they do the right thing. It's up to the dog to figure out what it is that they're doing that's good.

The reward is entirely separate from the agent, and agent behaviour can be completely changed just by changing when the reward is given. The demo is about hide and seek, where the agents are rewarded for not being seen / seeing their opponent (and not leaving the play area). The agents also succeeded at other games, where the only difference to the agent was when the reward was given.

It isn't really different from physically building the same play space, dropping some rats in it, and rewarding them with cheese when they are hidden from their opponents - except rats are unlikely to figure out how to maximise their reward in such a 'complex' game.

Given this description of how the AI actually works, the fact they came up with complex strategies like blocking doors, ramp surfing, taking the ramp to stop their opponents from ramp surfing, and just the general cooperation with other agents, without any code describing any of those things - is pretty amazing.

You can find out more about how the agents were trained, and other exercises they performed here:

https://openai.com/blog/emergent-tool-use/

My new goal is to take steroids, get swoll, become Mr. Universe, then I will talk about how much of a hypocrite I am.

It's an extreme solution certainly, but not without merit. I doubt there'd ever be a willing acceptance of such a plan though, so a slightly more realistic solution would need to be moderated some. How's this for dystopian-but-not-quite-genocidal:
Worldwide lottery, a small percentage (total of 500M - 1B maybe) wins the right to live in what will be the new model of the world: something like what we have now, but with drastically reduced usage of non-renewable resources (until they can be replaced completely) and a target of zero negative impact on the environment as a whole. Still some version of democratic (generally at least), freedom of whatnot and such, open travel to the degree that sustainable transportation options allow, all the (again, sustainable) mod cons. I suppose different countries / regions could still run things according to their preferences, as long as the net-zero goal remains.
The other lottery entrants, the non-winners, don't need to die, hooray! They will however live on something akin to reservations, as serfs, without the right to further reproduce. These poor bastards, in exchange for not being outright murdered to save civilization, are to be consolidated into agricultural communes to do whatever they can to regrow the world's flora and fauna until they all eventually die. Their goal is not net-zero, but as far into the positive as possible. It would all be overseen according to some grand scheme(s) to be as beneficial for the overall future of humanity and life on Earth in general as possible.

Probably also unworkable, but preferable to megamurder?

This is not about what he seeks or doesn't seek. It's about the false satisfaction you may feel about harming or killing another person as punishment.

I don't think people "deserve" to die because that's already written into the program for all of us. I do think people should live with what they've done.

I would not hesitate to kill someone or give my life if it was my only choice to save a life or relieve the pain of a leg cramp. I look at it from a "First Aid" point of view. If you can't remove the victim from the danger, remove the danger from the victim.

Once the danger is eliminated or contained, punishment teaches nothing except to respect or fear that which can kick your ass. Which, after all was the goal to begin with in this case. Punishment is only meant for the pleasure of the punisher. Nothing more.

Killing someone as a form of punishment only makes you a killer. If that's your dream then you are in the right place to do it. But I think there are better dreams to be had. Don't dream it, be it.

"In the next few decades"?! More like "a few decades ago".
Perhaps if we had started population control in the 80's with the goal of cutting global population in half by 2000 AND did the rest of what he suggests we might have a chance...we did not.

By the time we understood there was a problem there were less than a few decades left to solve it...that was around 40 years ago, and we've done everything possible to accelerate the damage we do on every front since then.

Ocean acidification is happening today, it's getting worse, it's slow to react to change so will continue to get worse even if humans disappeared tomorrow, it has built in feedback loops that have been triggered like melting methanehydrates and sequestered CO2 that are being released faster every single day, and we are increasing the man made causes every year. There is a point where it reaches critical acidification, the point where diatoms can't form their skeletons, and then the entire ocean system dies. That's far worse than the apocalypse it sounds like, not just because 50-60% of our oxygen comes from the ocean, but also because the rotting biomass creates huge amounts of not just more methane, compounding the greenhouse problem and further acidifying the oceans, but also immense amounts of hydrogen sulfide, which spread as huge poisonous clouds around the globe.
We are on our way to a man made Permian extinction, when >95% of all species went extinct and near 99% of all biomass was lost. We will not survive it as a species....and we don't deserve to.

I get wanting kids to understand what is going behind the scenes of the math problems. It's a good goal, but I do think they spend too much time on this portion. Show how to do it the shortcut way that most people know, show how it works, using the above, then back to the shortcut. Unless the person is entering a math field, they likely don't need the number theory.

It's not dumbing down, it's making it too complex for what most people need. Especially for those taught the old methods... of course "new math" is more like really old math, before we found shortcuts that we use now. The people who'll need number theory, will need to know how numbers actually work behind the scenes of what you are doing, will likely have a more intuitive understanding of the processes.

What needs to be done more is order of operations, so 6 / 2(1 + 2), isn't calculated as 1, and properly as 9... if I see somebody argue 6 / 6 is 1 ever again... There's another famous one that really messes up many calculators, because they do as entered, and don't wait for the equal sign to be entered. With a proper understanding of order of operations, they can use a calculator and get a correct answer. And that is more or less what "new math" is trying to teach in a very odd way...

Minute Physics covered Order of Operations well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9h1oqv21Vs

But what if it comes to you even if it wasn't your goal?

Wrong goal. Hoarding is useless if you can't spend it everyone needs to buy or invest and if the tax rate is high enough, it will cover govt expenses.

Yo, Godfrey, why are you appropriating white culture with those clothes, that language, that technology......aaaahahaha, look at you, trying to be a white boy....that's crazy.

Duh. Sounds pretty stupid turned around, doesn't it?

And that's not a wave haircut, that's a kid with wavy hair.
Duh again.

I find the claims of "cultural appropriations" asinine, some people have never heard America is called the melting pot, where cultural assimilation is the goal I guess. Damn, do we ever need to reinstate civics classes.