5 ms·

So from this hacker news title I definitely thought it was saying that when you give some AI agents a self reflection like maybe by putting an internal monologu

by ftxbro 3y ago

So from this hacker news title I definitely thought it was saying that when you give some AI agents a self reflection like maybe by putting an internal monologue loop then they unlock an emergent animal-like exploration behavior. But this is not what happened. Instead, some guys told AI agents to explore in the way that the guys think that animals explore. "Stanford researchers invented the “curious replay” training method based on studying mice to help AI agents"

onetokeoverthe 3y ago
[dead]
sva_ 3y ago
> Instead, some guys told AI agents to explore in the way that the guys think that animals explore. Something, something, The Bitter Lesson.
ShamelessC 3y ago
I hate that titles can differ from the article here. It’s patronizing and commonly inaccurate or misleading.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  “Patronizing” seems to be a matter of taste. I’ve never considered it to be patronizing; indeed, that’s often much unlike articles which have their title changed. As far as simply differing, much of the time there’s a character limit that’s hit. I’ve seen many posts with comment from the poster calling out their edit to the title and the character limit is usually cited. It would be especially difficult to keep the character limit (I think there are legitimate design reasons for this) while also requiring that the title matches the submission as closely as possible. Who decides what words are omitted without it potentially being any of: patronizing, inaccurate, or misleading?
- ftxbro 3y ago
  I don't like the misleading titles either, but honestly if you want the real titles you probably want some kind of arxiv feed. The paper title is "Curious Replay for Model-based Adaptation" which is too dry for social media or whatever hacker news is or for whoever is the audience of the stanford university press office. You have to expect more juicy (and therefore somewhat misleading or sensationalized) titles if you don't get your news straight from an arxiv feed.
baybal2 3y ago
[dead]
neuronerd1 3y ago
Author here, a key thing is that we didn't prescribe that the mechanism of exploration was the same, but rather we found that the AI agent explored poorly (i.e. unlike animals) until we included Curious Replay. Interestingly, we found that the benefits of Curious Replay also led to state of the art performance on Crafter.
- ftxbro 3y ago
  OK here is the arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.15934 https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.15934 called "Curious Replay for Model-based Adaptation" and from the abstract it says "we present Curious Replay -- a form of prioritized experience replay tailored to model-based agents through use of a curiosity-based priority signal" and "DreamerV3 with Curious Replay surpasses state-of-the-art performance on Crafter" here is the crafter benchmark https://github.com/danijar/crafter https://github.com/danijar/crafter but it appears to have out of date baselines at the bottom of that page. That arxiv stuff looks perfectly normal but I kind of hate how it got more and more caricatured as it went through the university press office and hacker news clickbait pipeline.
  - tnecniv 3y ago
    That’s standard. Me and others in my PhD cohort have had experiences where we saw so many minor inaccuracies in the copy we only fixed things that were flat out wrong, otherwise we’d have rewritten the whole article. It’s the result of a combination of non-experts having a 30 minute conversation with you then writing based off their notes a week later and the fact that their job is to hype up research so that it gets more attention from a broader audience. Everyone I knew said they wouldn’t let that happen to them when the press office called, but rewriting someone’s whole article because you feel like they missed nuances is hard to take a strong stance on, especially as an early career researcher.
    - ftxbro 3y ago
      yes it's better now that the hn mods have changed the headline
- 3y ago
dang 3y ago
(Submitted title was "“Self-reflecting” AI agents explore like animals". We changed it in keeping with the HN guidelines - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.)
- TechnologyPast 3y ago
  Hi dang. Can you whitelist some URLs for commenting from a new account? Like wikipedia.org and libquotes.com Looks like you shadowbanned this account. Maybe for posting a URL in the first comment.
  - dang 3y ago
    You just got hit by a spam filter. I've turned that off now. But please send questions like this to hn@ycombinator.com, as the site guidelines ask (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). They're off topic in the threads.

by ftxbro 3y ago

onetokeoverthe 3y ago

[dead]

sva_ 3y ago

> Instead, some guys told AI agents to explore in the way that the guys think that animals explore. Something, something, The Bitter Lesson.

ShamelessC 3y ago

I hate that titles can differ from the article here. It’s patronizing and commonly inaccurate or misleading.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
“Patronizing” seems to be a matter of taste. I’ve never considered it to be patronizing; indeed, that’s often much unlike articles which have their title changed. As far as simply differing, much of the time there’s a character limit that’s hit. I’ve seen many posts with comment from the poster calling out their edit to the title and the character limit is usually cited. It would be especially difficult to keep the character limit (I think there are legitimate design reasons for this) while also requiring that the title matches the submission as closely as possible. Who decides what words are omitted without it potentially being any of: patronizing, inaccurate, or misleading?
ftxbro 3y ago
I don't like the misleading titles either, but honestly if you want the real titles you probably want some kind of arxiv feed. The paper title is "Curious Replay for Model-based Adaptation" which is too dry for social media or whatever hacker news is or for whoever is the audience of the stanford university press office. You have to expect more juicy (and therefore somewhat misleading or sensationalized) titles if you don't get your news straight from an arxiv feed.

baybal2 3y ago

[dead]

neuronerd1 3y ago

Author here, a key thing is that we didn't prescribe that the mechanism of exploration was the same, but rather we found that the AI agent explored poorly (i.e. unlike animals) until we included Curious Replay. Interestingly, we found that the benefits of Curious Replay also led to state of the art performance on Crafter.

ftxbro 3y ago
OK here is the arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.15934 https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.15934 called "Curious Replay for Model-based Adaptation" and from the abstract it says "we present Curious Replay -- a form of prioritized experience replay tailored to model-based agents through use of a curiosity-based priority signal" and "DreamerV3 with Curious Replay surpasses state-of-the-art performance on Crafter" here is the crafter benchmark https://github.com/danijar/crafter https://github.com/danijar/crafter but it appears to have out of date baselines at the bottom of that page. That arxiv stuff looks perfectly normal but I kind of hate how it got more and more caricatured as it went through the university press office and hacker news clickbait pipeline.
- tnecniv 3y ago
  That’s standard. Me and others in my PhD cohort have had experiences where we saw so many minor inaccuracies in the copy we only fixed things that were flat out wrong, otherwise we’d have rewritten the whole article. It’s the result of a combination of non-experts having a 30 minute conversation with you then writing based off their notes a week later and the fact that their job is to hype up research so that it gets more attention from a broader audience. Everyone I knew said they wouldn’t let that happen to them when the press office called, but rewriting someone’s whole article because you feel like they missed nuances is hard to take a strong stance on, especially as an early career researcher.
  - ftxbro 3y ago
    yes it's better now that the hn mods have changed the headline
3y ago

dang 3y ago

(Submitted title was "“Self-reflecting” AI agents explore like animals". We changed it in keeping with the HN guidelines - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.)

TechnologyPast 3y ago
Hi dang. Can you whitelist some URLs for commenting from a new account? Like wikipedia.org and libquotes.com Looks like you shadowbanned this account. Maybe for posting a URL in the first comment.
- dang 3y ago
  You just got hit by a spam filter. I've turned that off now. But please send questions like this to hn@ycombinator.com, as the site guidelines ask (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). They're off topic in the threads.