We’ve been doing this in RL research with Minecraft as well (see MineDojo). An excerpt from the GitHub page:

MineDojo […] provides open access to an internet-scale knowledge base of 730K YouTube videos, 7K Wiki pages, 340K Reddit posts.

Again, no one has run into legal issues with this yet either, but this also isn’t as ubiquitous compared to Atari, nor has it been around for as long.

Did you mean to respond to a different comment? I have no idea what happened in the VP debate.

The very first response I gave said you just have to reframe state.

And I said “am augmented state space would make it Markovian”. Is that not what you meant by reframing the state? If not, then apologies for the misunderstanding. I do my best, but I understand that falls short sometimes.

Reinforcement learning research has been using Atari games as standard benchmarks for over a decade now and no one has faced legal issues yet.

I’m not familiar with the term “beam” in the context of LLMs, so that’s not factored into my argument in any way. LLMs generate text based on the history of tokens generated thus far, not just the last token. That is by definition non-Markovian. You can argue that an augmented state space would make it Markovian, but you can say that about any stochastic process. Once you start doing that, both become mathematically equivalent. Thinking about this a bit more, I don’t think it really makes sense to talk about a process being Markovian or not without a wider context, so I’ll let this one go.

nitpick that makes communication worse

How many readers do you think know what “Markov” means? How many would know what “stochastic” or “random” means? I’m willing to bet that the former is a strict subset of the latter.

It’s in reference to your complaint about the imprecision of “stochastic process”. I’m not disagreeing that molecular diffusion is a stochastic process. I’m saying that if you want to use “Markov process” to describe a non-Markovian stochastic process, then you no longer have the precision you’re looking for and now molecular diffusion also falls under your new definition of Markov process.

That’s basically like saying that typical smartphones are square because it’s close enough to rectangle and rectangle is too vague of a term. The point of more specific terms is to narrow down the set of possibilities. If you use “square” to mean the set of rectangles, then you lose the ability to do that and now both words are equally vague.

Everyone’s weird in their own ways. It’s just that one of them is trying to convince people that weird is bad while simultaneously trying to court their votes.

Stochastic process

Or maybe had to simultaneously work multiple full time jobs and a weekend job to make ends meet?

Why settle for good enough when you have a term that is both actually correct and more widely understood?

Why does everyone keep calling them Markov chains? They’re missing all the required properties, including the eponymous Markovian property. Wouldn’t it be more correct to call them stochastic processes?

Edit: Correction, turns out the only difference between a stochastic process and a Markov process is the Markovian property. It’s literally defined as “stochastic process but Markovian”.

I find it amusing that everyone is answering the question with the assumption that the premise of OP’s question is correct. You’re all hallucinating the same way that an LLM would.

LLMs are rarely trained on a single source of data exclusively. All the big ones you find will have been trained on a huge dataset including Reddit, research papers, books, letters, government documents, Wikipedia, GitHub, and much more.

Example datasets:

• RedPajama
• The Pile

What’s your definition of power then?

I would argue that there is a bidirectional casual relationship. Having more money gives you more power because you can directly spend that money to do things. More power means you can better influence people to give you their money.

We’re not at a point yet where this is a concern, so still on the brainstorming phase of how to do this.

I think the main concern I have is the addictive side of the internet that’s enabled by their recommendation systems and infinite scrolling, so that’s what I would try to block. For example, allow free reign on YouTube, but you have to specifically search for what you want to see.

There’s also the question of privacy, and whether we should be keeping track of and checking their browsing histories. I’m currently leaning towards yes, while also making sure that they’re aware of what we’re doing. There’s value in letting them make their own mistakes and learning from them, but that only applies to things that they can learn and easily recover from.

Immediately afterwards? I’ve been told to wait at least half an hour after eating, or else brushing will have a negative effect on your teeth.

We have one for my city centered around socializing and meeting people. We haven’t been getting any of the kinds of problems that everyone else here have faced.

I’m conflicted on this. On one hand, there are clear problems with the electoral college situation right now, but on the other hand, getting rid of it means that the tyranny of the majority will become a bigger problem. It’s unclear to me which is worse or how we can fix the latter.

Still, some are closer to the source of these ideas than others, think about awards attributed to individuals for example.

This is where the researchers would disagree with you. I don’t know if you’ve ever been involved in research (or startups). There’s a common saying that ideas are a dime a dozen. It’s much more so the work you do that’s important, not the idea itself.

singers, actors, politicians, or youtubers

Notice how being in the spotlight is an important aspect of all the professions you’ve listed. That naturally selects for people who are comfortable with or enjoy being on camera and are good at that kind of live performance. Similarly, science selects for people who are good at doing science. Sometimes, there’s an overlap, but it’s not that common.

If you’re interested in interviews with prominent scientists, Lex Fridman does quite a few of those. But if you want more people to do this, you’ll have to contend with the fact that most scientists simply have no interest in being on camera and probably never developed the skills needed for it.