3 ms·

OP says that it's possible to use medications to shift towards "explore". Are you implying that the true "exploit" phase (for a major part of life) is more desi

OP says that it's possible to use medications to shift towards "explore". Are you implying that the true "exploit" phase (for a major part of life) is more desirable? Someone had managed to learn Borland Delphi in the first 50 years of their life, has been mostly exploiting Delphi for 20 years, they would be 70 now. This example closely matches the statistical model that you are proposing. Originally I wanted to post a strong critique, but now I wonder about the actual real life of such Delphi graybeard. Looks somewhat tempting.

sbierwagen 6y ago
I imply nothing. Must everyone harbor a shadowy agenda? The math does not care. For some number of slot machines, for some variance of payout, there is a single optimal explore-exploit strategy. If there are two slot machines, then a optimal agent does very little exploring. If there are a million slot machines, almost all with a $1 payout, but one with a $1 trillion payout, then you are inclined to do more exploring.[1] Your disagreement is not with the theorem, but the shape of the distribution of slot machines. And, of course, that distribution changes over time. For most of human history there either was no technological progress or it was imperceptible across a lifetime. Our current riot of ever-changing software tools is unprecedented. And, as hard as it is to believe when we're in the thick of it, eventually computing will become a mature technology. A century from now, you can be sure there will be fewer programming languages in use, and they will be more similar to each other. If humans are still programming, the Delphi graybeard will be the norm, not the exception. The only thing that would force our current milieu to be permanent is if computing technology is inherently vulnerable to Red Queen's race-style situations, where platforms have to constantly mutate to stay ahead of attackers. -- 1: This is the actual useful takeaway from this submission, not the text from the article, which is the usual "science news" trash.

sbierwagen 6y ago

I imply nothing. Must everyone harbor a shadowy agenda? The math does not care. For some number of slot machines, for some variance of payout, there is a single optimal explore-exploit strategy. If there are two slot machines, then a optimal agent does very little exploring. If there are a million slot machines, almost all with a $1 payout, but one with a $1 trillion payout, then you are inclined to do more exploring.[1] Your disagreement is not with the theorem, but the shape of the distribution of slot machines. And, of course, that distribution changes over time. For most of human history there either was no technological progress or it was imperceptible across a lifetime. Our current riot of ever-changing software tools is unprecedented. And, as hard as it is to believe when we're in the thick of it, eventually computing will become a mature technology. A century from now, you can be sure there will be fewer programming languages in use, and they will be more similar to each other. If humans are still programming, the Delphi graybeard will be the norm, not the exception. The only thing that would force our current milieu to be permanent is if computing technology is inherently vulnerable to Red Queen's race-style situations, where platforms have to constantly mutate to stay ahead of attackers. -- 1: This is the actual useful takeaway from this submission, not the text from the article, which is the usual "science news" trash.