you don’t pay for your physics phd
you don’t pay for your physics phd
Lemmy rocks!!!
That’s taking it to the next level
Reminds me of “Children of Time” by Adrian Tchaikovsky that I am reading now
I also don’t get it. Not everything that smells causes you to sneeze. None of the methods actually make sense. A feather tickles you, not makes you sneeze. And the pepper? The experiment is invalid. Did not disprove the hypothesis, needs more testing.
Huh, that photo even appears on the webpage
Then the dentist royally screwed up
Classy
Dayuum.
Now that I think of it, it seems to be at the core of some issues with training AI agents using reinforcement learning (e.g., if you choose a wrong metric, you’d get the behavior that makes sense for the agent but not what you want) and with any kind of planned economy (you need targets for planning, but people manipulate them, so you do not get what you want)
Thanks for uncovering this report, very insightful and lots of great examples!
Could anyone explain what a “test coverage” means?
Still, an interesting take, same terms mean different things to different people
That’s what’s happening with Google and Instagram search algorithms. People figure out how to manipulate them and start spamming. Then the search results deteriorate and you have to modify the algorithm.
Thanks, yes, I saw that one, too, but I liked the emphasis on relationships. The shorter version is easier to get but it does not explain why this happens. E.g., you can observe some relationship (e.g., test results and a student’s intelligence) and then you target grades. But then you have an incentive to teach to the test, which breaks down the relationship between test results and intelligence. Other people here gave great examples of relationships that can fail.
I’m in stage three right now, where are you?
Probably some stressed RA: “how do they do these plots?.. ah, screw this, I’ll just put the T”
It’s only the beginning. Then they will get negative numbers, integers, reals, you name it