adityab

That is a beautiful metaphor. Thank you!

This is nonsense; Travis employees are the polar opposite of "codebros".

Lighthearted team profiles are absolutely not an insight into the employees' "mentality". If anything, your insinuations are in extremely bad faith and you should know better than to slander people you don't know, especially those whose livelihoods got snatched away.

Very lazy and bad stereotyping, 0/10 points, try again.

Yes, you're not alone. Oddly enough, it's been repurposed to mean something akin to value alignment or strategic cooperation. It used to mean thoughtful kindness, and this change seems to have suddenly happened in the last five years.

It's usage now makes me vaguely uncomfortable because it feels borderline sociopathic or manipulative.

The line will be drawn between class boundaries.

Actually the new finding is similar to weight normalisation for individual neurons. LRN would be similar to another thing called lateral inhibition.

Sarcasm may be the lowest form of wit, but puns sure are the puniest.

Looks like they want to avoid changing gameplay as much as possible.

Considering their focus on preserving even minute details of game dynamics... I wish they'd made an exception for pathfinding - the algorithm in the original AoE is extremely bad.

In particular, I really wish they'd introduce some improved ways to command groups of units. IIRC the Rise of Rome expansion introduced double-click group selection of all similar units, so it's not without precedent. If they change nothing else, my number one wish would be formations like in AoE II. I can't stand the way units just swarm like ants when told to move together.

To be precise, there exists a subset of facts that supports a narrative of epistemological nihilism.

Rather common in Indian English from what I've seen.

I don't get it, wouldn't building this be pointless after the Sophon interference jinxed everything?

You raise a good point. My answer is:

I understand the idea of doing probablistic inference about people based on their demeanor. We do it all the time with our minds, indeed many aspects of society and culture are built around non-verbal communication.

I'm okay with how things currently are, because we are innately capable of learning behavior policies for social interactions, while preserving a lot of cognitive privacy. In other terms, you can consciously control your demeanor (as the word is currently understood).

I afraid of inferences drawn from sub-conscious demeanors and involuntary information leaks.

Normal humans will not be able to tell if someone is nervous or afraid or angry just by looking at them, if that someone wants to maintain a pokerface. But it is entirely possible to read someone's pulse by recording a video of their skin, thus taking away some privacy of the mind [1].

We haemorrhage a lot of information all the time. As far as I know, current polygraph tests are trash, but I would be unsurprised if some characteristic features were to be found in a video+audio stream of someone's face that would estimate with good accuracy and precision that they were lying.

We all lie. To others and to ourselves. Within limits, lying is an integral part of healthy life. A world where I cannot casually lie is not one where I can live in; cognitive privacy is important.

[1]: http://people.csail.mit.edu/mrub/vidmag/

Some comments are focusing on this exacerbating aggregate phenomena like diversity stats and wage gaps. This is true and a huge negative.

But that's not the only thing we should be worried about. Far more damaging would be the dystopia that these "cognitive surveillance" products will bring upon us.

It claims to micro-analyze facial expressions, intonation, non-verbal signals while the candidate is interviewing. This is vile, hostile interaction in my opinion, and it is startling to see that companies like Vodafone, Intel, and Oracle are their customers [1].

At best, this is a way to sweep unaccountable decision-making under the carpet of "the software said so". Quite likely, though, is that such products will make society a living hell for everyone until these practices are entrenched in the industry and it is too late to roll it all back.

The creators of these products are not stupid, they made a conscious choice to grab low-hanging fruit (now that they have the technology available) and enrich themselves while making the world a worse place. Let's not kid ourselves that the consequences of their actions did not occur to them.

As a research student in DL/AI, I realize this may make things marginally worse for my career, but right here is the reason we should regulate AI usage _now_: not Skynet, but these attempts to "disrupt" social norms for no stated reason other than "progress" and "efficiency". We should keep some technologies out of the public sphere and make it vocally clear that they are unacceptable, lest we end up with a world where everyone is wearing google glasses and you have no way to maintain a personal facade because some combination of blood flow and facial muscle twitch betrays your thoughts.

Your only argument against this stuff should not only be that it has X bug or that it's execution isn't sound due to Y bias. We must oppose such things on principle, I would rather kill myself than live in some sort of Black Mirror-esque dystopia where this is mainstream.

[1]: https://www.hirevue.com/customers

I loved how in Arrival, they build a statistical model to map between concepts in the two languages, ostensibly via a joint embedding space.

They don't elaborate on it in the movie, but I could totally see such ideas being explained with style (and tense background music) in future sci-fi films about AI. Make it as banal as possible.

True, but none of those fields have the same kind of "end of humanity" connotations attached, in the general psyche.

Clarifications by well-known researchers don't travel as far and wide as urgency-signaling clickbait...