yespleasethrow

Ha! It went straight over my head.

> Our results present abilities that are, as far as we know, unheard of.

Look, I gotta say, I'm pretty disappointed with the ridiculous level of salesmanship that authors now feel is necessary to get a paper into NIPS. I can only hope the reviewers might ask the researchers to tone back the crazy hype pitch, but I know better than to expect that.

Presenting things that were previously unheard of... well, that would be what scientific papers are for, aren't they?

Please, make it stop, link to the actual blog post from OpenAI or the paper instead of some uninformed tech blog writer's horribly half-understanding summary.

"could help judge their intentions". Come on now. Today's "AI systems" don't "intend".

You can actually take most of the bullshit out of an "AI!!!!" headline by simply replacing "AI" with "computers".

"Artificial intelligence is being used to predict gambler behaviour" --> "computers are being used to predict gambler behaviour"

I think it's a lot more reflective of what's actually going on and removes a lot of the clickbaity hype...

I am one of these Atlanta-based machine learning specialists, here to confirm that we do exist. But I think it is very rare, and I am not sure many at all are doing $300k+. Since the cost of living is comparatively low, though, I am doing way better than I ever could dream of doing in the bay.