Your video, VLDL: When the quest reward sucks - Reward, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Maybe, but I'm not paid well with extraordinary benefits and authority or charged with public safety. They are. I don't have paid therapy to get over the treatment they give and I receive, they do. I don't have immunity from consequences, they do. I don't have a gang willing to lie, cheat, steal, threaten,etc on my behalf, they do. I don't fight tooth and nail for my right to lie to you for my benefit and your detriment, they do.
My cynicism doesn't destroy and end lives with accusations, lies, and bullets...theirs does.

It was hardly early afternoon, and my cynicism is a constant. ;-)

Nothing is going to change. I was a helpful, hopeful person until reality made me change, my helpfulness and optimism about people never changed a cynical one into an optimist, but they sure changed my optimism to cynicism. I've too often seen open hearted 'benefits of a doubt' be exploited, and it's exceptionally rare it's been earned or rewarded. I would say if you aren't cynical about humans in general, and authorities without exception, you aren't paying attention and you'll end up regretting it.

That said, I'm not saying don't be helpful, just be careful about it or prepared to pay for your good deeds. Edit: I am saying don't put yourself in jeopardy to help cartel gang members. They don't warrant the risk.

Invoke "Happy" ?

That vid really made me happy for him. A late reward for his service in a bad time for vets in US history.

#promote is this how it is done. This is a pretty interesting system. I am wondering if it has some kind of game like qulaity to it in some manner. It seems to be reward based.

Because heroes don't do things the usual way and they don't use Reward cards either.

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/

Trust...but verify. Regan got one thing right. I'm not a liar, but I'm certainly not always right either.

They've never met, he was lying.

Fact?....ok, no, prediction. She's a little girl, so it's a near certainty she's going to be trouble in 10 years under any circumstances, but more so if she's a practiced liar.
But, her dad is rewarding the lying with extra attention and laughter. Assuming that's normal for them, he's teaching her to lie, not teaching her to be truthful. At the very least, that degrades his ability to reasonably complain when the lies get serious....She's only doing what he taught her after all.

But, without exception, that is EXACTLY what religions teach, that only those who believe correctly are correct and thus deserving of the supernatural rewards. It's how they excuse proselytizing, often with force. Can you name a real religion that says "we are the proper way to God, but other ways are just as valid."? (And I don't count individuals stating that, only the written texts that codify the beliefs).

Yes, we do treat those other people with disdain, those of us who don't buy into one or more flock that is.

They can't see through the hypocrisy and idiocy because religion/churches demand you not question your religious leaders, absolutely do not think for yourself. Don't try to interpret your dogma for yourself. Doing that leads directly to excommunication or much worse.

None of this is exclusive to Christianity, but in European/American culture it is most prevalent there.

Side question: What good has religion done that could not have been done better without it? Be specific please, with examples.

When I go into a convenience store the clerk always asks if I have a rewards card.

I tell them no.

Then they ask if I would like one.

That's when I have to tell them, Heroes don't accept rewards.

Before I was rewarded with a broken heart, I loved with innocence. Now, I love with purpose.

Feel free to write your own lyrics with that seed.

"Come on you raver, you seer of visions,
Come on you painter, you piper, you prisoner, and shine!" -Pink Floyd

Dishonest stating it in a way that strongly implies he was kicked out for his opinion, and hides from the fact it was for speaking out repeatedly, disruptively.
That's a lie by obfuscation.

Did you even watch it?
The teacher was clear, he was kicked out for continuing to argue after being allowed to state his opinion...a right he did not have but a privilege he was granted. That is disruptive, as is requiring individual attention a second time to discuss the same thing.

He was kicked out for repeating his opinion, disrupting class and the teacher.

The issue is being disruptive in class, thinking his uninformed opinion should shout down an informed one from the teacher, an opinion held by the school board and codified in the rules of conduct.

Regardless of what the douchebag kid thinks on this matter, he has no right to disrupt the class by debating policy.
The kid is free to think, but not to disrupt class. He may express his thoughts....at home or in open public forums, not class.

If you defy school policy, expect to reap the rewards of being removed from school and all that comes with that. Duh. Challenge, sure, appropriately, in appropriate venues and times, like a school board or PTA meeting, not during class. If you wish to challenge it inappropriately and disruptively, don't think standing on the right to speak gives you immunity from other rules or repercussions. That's not how it works. It's not an absolute right....I'll prove it, go argue gender in a federal court that's in session, see how long you remain standing and unincarcerated. Better yet, go argue something not insanely pro Trump at a Trump rally, see how many teeth you have in the morning...If you see morning.

Perhaps, and that's nice of you to say, but no one's offering me money yet, nor is anyone asking me to write for them. I'm a horrific salesman, so trying to sell myself is just not going to work. I tend to point out the faults in the product I'm supposed to be selling.

I agree, those who write for the money rather than to spread ideas are far less effective or honest than those who write to illuminate. It would be nice if the latter was rewarded more than the former, but that's not the world I live in.

Judges will find me?! Like Dredd?! Oh shit....I better hide in the deep dark behind the sewer roaches.

"Warned about"....by Noah, not God, right? So Noah failed to convince them it was true, no? If they knew it was coming because they KNEW God was real and had warned them himself...good riddance, they must have been incredibly dumb or suicidal.

I've been warned that Zenu is coming back too....I've been warned that Vikings will pour over a rainbow and murder the world, or many other tales that existed far longer than this Jesus guy's been heard of. I've only been warned of these things by humans who were clearly delusional (or liars), never anyone trustworthy. When the message is unbelievable, and so is the messenger, and the proof is "believe", and there are dozens of contradictory messages with exactly the same level of proof, the idea that a person should choose correctly or suffer eternal punishment is the definition of evil.

If God withholds judgment capriciously out of fickle mercy based on no discernable pattern or rule, and just as often punishes the righteous and rewards the wicked as the reverse, how is that different from random chance?

Why do you stubbornly deny the undeniable existence of El and his son Ba'al, though you see their works daily? Their tales, which predate even the earliest Hebrew scriptures or stories, prove their hand in your existence, yet you refuse to give your devotion and would unfairly discredit them and hand all credit to this Johnny come lately deity. Mot shall have you if you don't repent.
Sounds silly, doesn't it?