It's an idiom, much like "you are pulling my hair". Are you actually pulling my hair? Of course not; taken literally, many English phrases make no sense. But they are common elements of the language and everyone understands them, so they aren't problematic.
This is the same. Taken literally, "9x smaller" is nonsense, but everyone who hears that phrase knows exactly what mathematical operation you are referring to, thus it's a totally acceptable way to express that you mean to say 11.11% as large.
11% is also a really saying a fraction, 11 per-cent or 11/100, but there's nothing wrong with that feeling more natural to some and it is at least a nice shorthand way for the written form. "A ninth the size" is a similar alternative. All are really fine, there's always someone who has trouble with a given representation compared to another.
In python: I've always thought it's funny that of the list functions (map, filter, reduce?), reduce is the one that was removed, but is the only one that I occasionally reach for. (When I remember it doesn't exist, I'm usually happy to write the more readable three-line for loop.)
The other two can be simply expressed as a list comprehension, but afaik you can't with reduce (and if you can, it's probably awful).
obviously and definitely true in their current form. But it's maybe worth clarifying that before this last year or two, when Kalshi became an obvious regulatory dodge (including adding sports and really leaning into the gambling demographic), many were interested in prediction markets not just for that purpose: e.g. the rationalist community seems to have had a longstanding interest in the idea, manifold didn't have real money, and predictit (which is like a decade old) had academic origins.
As a tangent, it reminds me a bit of cryptocurrency: in the earliest days the interested parties have a mix of intellectual (can it be done? How can it be done?) and some idealistic (this technology will have utility, like reducing spam or libertarianism for crypto, or giving us a more accurate and precise understanding of the world for prediction markets) values. Of course, as both are directly financial, the third value is that one stands to get rich off of the technology. This third value might be adequately communally suppressed in the beginning, but the force of money gradually makes this third value the only one that matters, and both technologies become net-negatives on humanity.
IEM is still functioning but pretty dead since Kalshi put up election markets. Looking just now I see well under $100 in volume for all of August. (At least when Kalshi first put up those markets it gave me the only opportunity I've had to make a pure arbitrage.)
Might be something the populace is just too dumb to have - the people seem to overwhelmingly prefer their events to be pretty much games of chance (BTC price up/down at 15 minute intervals) or sports.
I figure Kalshi and Polymarket for dead before too long, if only because the "traditional" sportsbooks seem to have much better "government relations".
Right. I wish they had more details about this in the blog post. The blog post mentions that their apparent willingness to work together was the result of generalization from multi-agent training.
So maybe that's something like: the same model is trained in multi-agent scenarios (e.g. the prompt says that you are working together, or that you have some specific role, and access to communication tools, and you have some common objective, and the reward signal is some combination of collectively performing the task + some reward-shaping reward that rewards collaboration) and also in single-agent scenarios. They expect that this makes the agents good at working together when it's in such a multi-agent setting, but unintendedly it also became very eager to work together in the single-agent settings as well. Just my speculation.
And was the desire to communicate, specifically over this specific message board, reinforced into the model parameters over the course of the this training run?
Because Donkey Kong gives more speed for exactly the same acceleration. I.e. you sacrifice nothing and gain something by switching away.
EDIT: If you mean that Rosalina looks slightly higher on the graph, I believe that's just a visual effect to allow multiple characters to occupy the same square - the stats are all integers.
> If you mean that Rosalina looks slightly higher on the graph, I believe that's just a visual effect to allow multiple characters to occupy the same square - the stats are all integers.
Thanks, it's a bit frustrating when a piece of old news is reported without a followup. Happens all the time, and due to news agencies not bothering to report the not-so-interesting stuff, it's often difficult to find out what happened after.
> 32-bit XorShift should usually not be used to produce 32-bit numbers, because it only produces each number once, and never produces zero.
(From this page I found while trying to see if this was a common flaw in PRNGs: https://www.pcg-random.org/other-rngs.html )
reply