scottmsul

An interesting anecdote: I was a big trumpet player in high school, and developed perfect pitch but mainly only for trumpet sounds.

Or you could, you know, let people have access to the base model and engineer their own system prompts? Instead of us hoping you tweak the only allowed prompt to something everyone likes?

So much for "open" AI...

Also I should add, being a Factorio veteran with 2-3k hours in this game, I think the goal of making the "largest possible factory" is too vague and not the right metric. When Factorio players make large megabases, they don't go for "size" per se, but rather science research per minute. The metric you should be telling the agents is SPM, not "largest" base!

There was a HN post here not too long ago about a team that used reinforcement learning to train an agent to beat pokemon red. They mentioned how they had to tweak the cost function to give small rewards for exploring and big rewards for completing "essential tasks" like beating gyms.

I wonder if this same approach could be used here in factorio? Using the pokemon red analogy the main "essential tasks" in Factorio are setting up automation for new items and new science packs. I think a good reward function could involve small rewards functions for production rates of each item/sec, medium rewards for setting up automation for new items, and big rewards for automating each new science pack.

Telling a Factorio agent to just "make a big factory" is like telling a pokemon red agent to just "beat the game", it has to be broken down into smaller steps with a very carefully tuned reward function.

Thinking about this is really making me want to jump into this project!

I just see a bunch of spinning coins forever and nothing happens with no way to stop it...

> if you have a path in the upper bunk that gets broken you are screwed

Counter-factuals like this don't apply when talking about average probabilities. If you cross over, it's an identical graph with identical probabilities. idk, to me it seems really counter-intuitive that the opposite bunk's node would be easier to get to than the current bunk's node.

Suppose all the groceries raised the price of item X by exactly the same percent Y on the same day. At first glance this would look like perfect collusion in the data. But how do you know it wasn't just the supplier price going up by Y percent?

Suppose we took this line of thinking to its natural conclusion. If we wanted to be completely neutral, in theory we could have no male/female division at all, and just compete for the "best human" in each sport. But because of the vast biological differences between men and women, men would win every single time, hands down. This goes back to why do we have men and women divisions in the first place? Because we want a space for people without the vast advantages from male physiology to compete fairly with each other. Allowing for people who are technically "women" based on their reproductive anatomy, but have all the male physiological advantages otherwise, feels like it defeats the entire purpose from having separate women divisions.

Except sinusoids are special in that they are natural solutions to the Helmholtz wave equation. There's other problems too like square waves having infinite energy. This article might make sense to a mathematician or computer scientist but neglects the underlying physics of sound and waves.

Congrats!

For anyone who's interested, there's a group of us dedicated to natural myopia reduction at reducedlens.org, which is a free and open-source fork of endmyopia. I've even started measuring my axial length to try and get better data on if this stuff actually works (only one measurement so far though, so nothing interesting yet).

The nature paper was pretty crazy. Basically because blue bends more than red (think of a prism), it also focuses a bit sooner. This phenomenon is known as longitudinal chromatic aberration, or LCA for short. This means if you're myopic, blue might be more blurry than red, and vice-versa if you're hyperopic. The researchers in the nature paper had participants watch a movie where they straight-up blurred the blue or red with software, in order to produce fake LCA signals. They found the participants axial lengths still shortened or lengthened anyway in response.

But why would it be a dodecahedron and not just a metal plate with a hole in it? Seems overkill.

Having given my brother a Tungsten cube once for Christmas, it's possible they just made these because they were fun and looked cool.