4 ms·
I don't know, it seems a bit dishonest to imply that the rats wanted the selfies(I got that impression), when all they wanted was pressing the button, because t
by lukan 3y ago
I don't know, it seems a bit dishonest to imply that the rats wanted the selfies(I got that impression), when all they wanted was pressing the button, because they learned, it would produce treats reliable, and later at least sometimes. If at some point, there never would be treats coming anymore, that would uncondition themself and at some further point, they would not care about that stupid button anymore. Unless of course, they would have nothing else to play with. (Is that also a metapher about FB?)
- yareal 3y agoDid it make you feel something to see this article? Frustration, interest, excitement, anything? It's art. How you interpret it is sort of the point. It's not science, it's someone trying to make you think, and it seems like you thought in response to it. Successful art then.
- moolcool 3y agoI don't see how it's dishonest. The artist is transparent in his methodology, and the metaphor (engagement = treats) is clear. Either way, this is an art piece so it isn't subject to the same kinds of rigor or scrutiny of a scientific experiment.
- lukan 3y ago"For me, they're really like performers, you know? They perform for the camera," he said. "They look cute." Yeah, it is art. It wants to be interesting nested in many layers. I still don't buy this.
- imoverclocked 3y agoThe constant reward is a way to quickly condition a behavior. Random reward has a higher permanence… however, it’s clear that they weren’t doing it for the treats when they started ignoring the treats they received.
- lukan 3y agoYeah, after they were full, they were just after the conditioned kick. But where they ever looking at their picture, or even had the chance to do so? In my understanding no. So they never cared about the camera, or the picture.