121–130 of 142 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AG does use minimax in the same sense that for example stockfish does (bounded depth and with pruning)
But that isn't minimax, its pruning by some evaluation function, where in this case the evaluation function is "blackbox Deep neural net trained on many games"
Yesterday I mentioned vodka to my wife in Facebook Messenger and a few minutes later she saw a vodka advertisement on her timeline. Obviously Messenger will never include end to end encryption.
An even better example. I searched for a product on Amazon.de on my laptop , and 1 hour later when browsing Imgur on my phone , I got an ad for the exact product.
OP has shown that and how FB does in fact use text analysis of messages to show adverts. You habe been a re-targeting target by correllating your browsing habits and other factors. That has been going on for ages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could Facebook be doing so well because this is actually a win-win situation for everyone involved ? That includes the people you mentioned yes, but also users who get to use a valuable tool for free. The whole "if it's free, you are the product" party line may resonate in HN circles, but you have to realize the public as a whole doesn't think it's a bad deal at all.
People in the general public don't really have a clear idea about what Facebook, Google, and Amazon are doing. Still, most people I know are vaguely aware that there's something creepy going on. They aren't really comfortable with Facebook, Inc owning their digital social life, but they rely on it because of the obvious network effect. Try asking someone "hey, you know Facebook use a lot of state-of-the-art technolog…
Still there is nothing which could totally replace Facebook so old users are staying and baiting new users. It still has unique offer for large user base and very useful features so even if it's getting worse it can stand. People might be clicking their feed more but that's because they are so bored with content that they try if they can find something more interesting behind the links. Or they are scrolling down since trying to find something interesting, something different which is hard since algorithms just push same boring content all over again. But statistics look good.
What's the magic of Facebook? If you could answer that and build the service people will flock out from Facebook.
Isn't "text understanding engine" a poor description of what is basically a classifier? I'd expect a text understanding engine to do more than classify, I'd expect it to read a bunch of sentences in context and then be able to answer questions about it: John was walking down the stairs. John tripped and fell. John lays on the floor. Describe John's status: Is he hurt or in pain? Is he standing?
Facebook have one of the leading teams on doing Deep Learning question answering. Jason Weston et. al wrote a paper introducing a machine-generated textual dataset[1] similar to what you describe, eg: Daniel picked up the football. Daniel drops the football. Daniel got the milk. Daniel took the apple. How many objects is Daniel holding? There have been plenty other papers published by them and others tackling that an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People in the general public don't really have a clear idea about what Facebook, Google, and Amazon are doing. Still, most people I know are vaguely aware that there's something creepy going on. They aren't really comfortable with Facebook, Inc owning their digital social life, but they rely on it because of the obvious network effect. Try asking someone "hey, you know Facebook use a lot of state-of-the-art technolog…
Or maybe Facebook is still doing fine since there is no good enough alternative. It seems like Facebook is getting worse all the time but since everybody's there and it's familiar people still uses it. Indicators are they are losing young people, who tend to adapt faster and have not yet build habit of use and more and more people are using other services for particular activities. Still there is nothing which could…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This pisses me off to no end. When I disable something like web browsing history because I get a nagging feeling that Google knows more about me than it should. Then on the way out of work I try an "OK Google. Directions home"[0] to get a time estimate or best route estimate and it tells me I have to turn on browser history to continue or some other such bs. I wonder when Google Now will understand "Ok google. F?!k y…
This particular point was rather annoying, and involved working around it in this manner: Me: "OK Google, navigate home" Google: "You need to turn on web and app activity." Me: "OK Google, navigate to $NUMBER $STREET, $TOWN." Google: "No problem". But, they then decided that web and app activity was essential in order to give me commute information, and the only way I found around this was to turn it back on and star…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a slight tangent, but I don't even like the fact that what I see when I type something into Google may not be what others see. I think the inconvenience of having to type "order pizza in $city" rather than just "order pizza" is more than outweighed by not kind of destroying "consensus reality" as far as it pertains to search results, not to mention the potential for really creepy things down the line. It's no…
I read a paper on this recently in class and I think their findings were that most google results are the same other than geographically specific ones like you mentioned. For instance, if we both type "trump", most of the results will be the same unless there is a trump tower near you, in which case it'll direct you to it. Ordering of results however can change.
Further reading:
https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On yesterday's episode of POI a character said that the Machine (an AI) has to contain a simulation of a person in order to understand what that person will do.
That idea is beautifully explored in this episode of Black Mirror: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Christmas_%28Black_Mirro...
Edit: Also, goddamn dickheads wasting human upload/duplication....
Slightly contrarian, or maybe not-but is anyone else sort of fatigued with social media trying it's hardest to do it all for you? Algorithmic timelines telling me what happened while I was gone (trust me, twitter...I would have gotten to it eventually), prioritizing what shows up (trust me facebook, I do a very good job hiding content on my own), telling me what I ought to buy (trust me, Amazon if I wanted it-I'd eit…
What scares me about this is the "bubble" it creates, see [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble (even mentions Facebook's news-stream)
Note - I don't just mean, "content that disagrees with you", because 95% of that is shit (Sturgeon's Law), but, content that effectively disagrees with you. That actually has a chance of changing your mind.
Information Quotient, as I understand it, is the idea of "What information will teach me the most?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that isn't minimax, its pruning by some evaluation function, where in this case the evaluation function is "blackbox Deep neural net trained on many games"
In that case, stockfish doesn't use minimax either right, because it does pruning as well
Minimax and MCTS are just different algorithms.
MCTS simulates games randomly and creates a distribution of expected value for each one based on some cool math. It estimates the value of each state based on a sample. Minimax actually calculates them all (or all of them except for some pruned ones).
That's the whole reason MCTS can work on Go and minimax doesn't. Minimax actually needs to look at all possible branches all the way down. MCTS can just say "well its been 100ms, let's use the estimates I have".