I agree so much with this. I was excited for the feature until the first 10 seconds. I don't want a fake DJ "talking to me" or attempting to emulate a radio DJ. It's not like all I have to look at is a dial with numbers on it. I can see all the details of what you're playing, thanks. Shut up and just let me see if I like what you think I'll like, enough that it makes me feel that your recommendations won't be immediate rejections. Or just have the dumb AI talk to me about it, so I know that I absolutely do not want to use the feature. sigh
Complete plays is a fair metric, if it doesn't take into consideration related traits like when I love a particular remix of a song that is very different than the original, the system decides that I loved the original song and is now going to recommend songs similar to or liked by other users of the system that liked that original song.
This is another place where Pandora really set themselves apart, the Music Genome Project. Any given track that went through curation has a (possibly very) large set of attributes assigned to it. This song you liked, it has a heavy bass-line, noticeable amount of shuffle, light drums, syncopated rhythms, etc. That's far better (to me) than "you might like other songs by this artist" or "other listeners of this artist also listen to", where the last one gets really sketchy when there's not a lot of listeners for the artist.
I'm also curious how it treats listening to a track on a Spotify station that is mixed, where they transition in to and out of the track late or early, so you won't hear the full track, does that still count?
Heck, sometimes I'll get almost to the end of the track and skip to the next just because the track has a long tail and I want to get to something that has more energy, not the dwindling remains of the rhythm or some soft piano fade out at the end of a 130 BPM track that had a lot of energy throughout most of it.
If they're going to make all of these sometimes seemingly arbitrary judgements of whether or not I like something based on these weird things like "there's a common English word in the playlist title that also shows up in all these song titles we're going to recommend to you", at least a list or chart of how it works somewhere would be nice, so I can make more effective use of the system.
Not when it's recommending something it _should_ already know I like (and probably why it added it to the list). Also, sometimes, I may like something, but not add it to my personal list. Since there's no way to rate a song, I use likes only for songs I really like.
I think the real point to be made here is that this is part of the inner workings of the system, that most users of the system are unaware of. Hell, this article and the ensuing discussions do not leave it completely clear how much of the system works. Like, I despise that when I create a new playlist with a name, it recommends a bunch of tracks based on the name of the playlist. Sometimes that'll be tracks with words in the name of the playlist in their name or some other odd metric, like it'll add songs from an artist that has a song that happens to be the name of the playlist. If you don't puzzle this out for yourself, you're possibly creating a very UN-optimized playlist for yourself.
You're comparing video streaming services (one of them a live streaming service) that have far more cost per user, to something that has far more minimal costs. You're also comparing individual account cost per user that includes much more than just API access.
Where is your evidence or even subjective knowledge about Reddit being the company that's trying the hardest to make this work?
Also, to answer your initial question, regardless of anything else in your comment, the rate is absurd because it clearly falls under bait and switch. Build up your userbase, including offering your content from an API until you're basically the monopoly in your market and then start charging per month, per user, for API access. It's not like individual users are paying for their API access and feeding that API key to other apps to use. It's clearly meant to crush 3rd party apps, not facilitate Reddit making money through 3rd party apps. They can make far more money through their own massively ad infested app without providing any of the features that make other apps attractive, if they just crush 3rd party apps. In which case, why both charging for the API. As others have suggested, why not just shut it down or limit it? Simply because they want to appear as if they're not shutting out the world, while still doing exactly that.
Yeah... was wondering if it eventually learns that digging straight down is more likely to kill you than any other direction or if it could ever learn to down down only when standing on the edge of another block, instead of the one you're breaking.
They don't explicitly talk about curriculum improvement based on negative reinforcement. It would be relatively straight forward to do tho.
Perform self-reflection every time damage is taken (the iterations of self-reflection can depend on % health lost). Something like "Please output as a list of general guidelines / best-practices that any Minecraft player can use in the future. For each guideline add a risk profile that is introduced if the guideline is neglected. Based on the following game log over the last 100 steps, what should the Minecraft player have done differently to avoid taking damage? \n <game log>"
And keep storing those guidelines over multiple iterations. If there start to become too many best-practices, ask GPT-4 to "Please output as a list of general guidelines / best-practices that any Minecraft player can use in the future. For each guideline add a risk profile that is introduced if the guideline is neglected. Take the guidelines below and summarize them. Prioritize retaining more detail about the guidelines with a higher risk profile, and do merge guidelines if possible and appropriate. \n <old guidelines>"
> Perform self-reflection every time damage is taken
Given the number of times I've taken damage in Minecraft from a Creeper that has seemingly just appeared behind me, I expect this feedback loop to pretty quickly end up with a bot that does a full surroundings scan after every action to make sure there's no Creepers around.
I seriously think that the specific range of hours was not at all the point of the example. Would you disagree?
If you're going to nit-pick, my kid starts school at 9am, so I can't start work before 9am. What about remote workers and the example of walking around the office?
I'm pretty sure the example was specifically to note that cutting off their work hours was a successful tactic with respect to leaving them with something to start in the morning, vs letting them finish what they're working on and then have to figure out what/how to get started on in the morning.
Literally the point of the article there, leaving your work unfinished or broken, as it were, so you can just jump in knowing the next thing you were already going to do last night, but forced yourself not to or were forced to not finish.
I’m not not picking, I’m disagreeing with the idea that the relative end time is all that matters. I specifically did not blame the manager in my comment.
It’s really not clear what you’re saying other than that 6pm would be too late for you personally.
As I’ve explained - I picked that time as the latest people were allowed to work in the office. Before I adopted this, people were randomly staying much later.
I think the point here is that now you can. Your "AI" can draw it for you with extreme accuracy and then... is it yours? That's the real question here. Pretty simple.
What if we had a copyright law that did give like a percent of detail that has to be different, so you make a new drawing that has the required amount of difference, and it's yours right? Now your "AI" can be trained to make differences in drawings that specifically meet the requirement of however much difference between the original and yours will negate the ability of the original author to make a copyright claim. Pretty straightforward. It's not the case now, but when we have enough content that has to be judged by humans on whether or not it falls under copyright... Anyhoo... I'm not selling content, so I shouldn't care, right?</snark>
Maybe you missed the part where the insurance stopped paying anything. If you do nothing, the insurance wins while you still have to eventually pay or suffer other consequences.
The only trick here is tricking yourself into thinking you've won until proven otherwise.
Not saying this is the complete picture, but the first thing I thought of was "Maybe it's just that $75,000 was the bare minimum to break the barrier of some specific level of unhappiness at the time the data was collected from the sample population?" which immediately led to "Also, $75,000 was probably a pretty outdated value well before the data was even published."
0/10 indeed