Might be a Boost bug, but the link doesn’t include anything past the hyphen.

Perhaps the U.S. could be named after gold

The United States of Aumerica

I’d love to see it being used by enemies so they’re challenging without cheating, though.

Check out Sony’s work with GT Sophy

I think we should be looking at all the marketing and data collection used to that end.

Or acquire freely through a number of digital means

What you want is a distribution-aware contextual binary search. With whatever information you have (appearance, personality, vocabulary, etc), you can come up with a probability distribution in the space of possible ages and start your guess with the value at the 50th percentile. Then depending on whether the true age is higher or lower, your next guess will be either the 25th or 75th percentile. Rinse and repeat.

In reality, the way most people intuitively do agree guessing is already an approximation of this procedure.

If sexual pleasure is the only thing going great in a couple […] one should probably reconsider if said relationship is still a loving one.

This makes sense if you omit the second condition.

You’re basically telling me that asexual people can’t love one another.

And seriously, if the friction is the only thing that make you enjoy sex, and not with whom you have sex with, you seriously should reconsider your relationship.

Why would you choose to do anything for fun that isn’t mutually enjoyable? You can enjoy both your partner’s company and also the activity you do together at the same time. It’s not one or the other. Don’t like condomed sex? Then don’t do it. There’s more to a romantic relationship than sex.

So what you’re saying is that Andrew Yang should run again.

Part of the reason Amazon works well is because they sell high volumes of each product, allowing them to distribute products ahead of time across warehouses to match expected demand. You can’t do that if you only have exactly one of each item.

In a socialist country, I would guess that there’s much less incentive to pump out slop. So if you make videos with AI, it’s more likely that you’ve actually put some thought into it and are making something of actual value to someone.

That’s why you always specify the base

10₁₀

Did Xi actually take offense to it? I thought it was just others being overly heavy-handed in their censorship, thus Streisanding the whole thing.

I’ve always just done lots of water and waited it out. I see medication at the pharmacies labeled “cold medication”, but I never looked into what they do.

Meaning that it’s just marketed as cold medication without doing anything specifically for colds?

For each tab, I find the project(s) associated with it, find my notes for that project, save the URL for that page in the appropriate place in my notes, then close the tab.

If it’s something that isn’t for a specific project (e.g. reading something because it looks interesting), then I just close it. It’s not important. There’s plenty of entertainment to be found without those.

The main difficulty is in how many hyperparameters are involved in training an RL agent, high sensitivity of RL algorithms to those hyperparameters, and not having a good understanding of how to select them based on the properties of your task. This problem is exacerbated by the high sample complexity of RL. If something doesn’t work out, you don’t know if it’s because you chose the wrong set of hyperparameters or if you just haven’t trained for long enough.

I don’t know much about game design, but I do know that it’s a much more mature field than RL, so surely they have better tools than guessing and praying.

It is expensive, but it does work. We’ve already seen things work to a limited extent on StarCraft 2, Dota, and Gran Turismo, and those are all multiplayer games. The article seems to be talking about single player games, which simplified things a lot.

Game playing is not LLM. They’re game-specific reinforcement learning models. It’s not easy, but definitely doable with existing tech. Sony’s GT Sophy is a good demonstration on what they’re capable of.