It seems like an odd way to name/announce it, there's nothing obvious to distinguish it from what was already there (i.e. 4o making images) so I have no idea if there is a UI change to look for, or just keep trying stuff until it seems better?
If only OpenAI would dogfood their own product and use ChatGPT to make different choices with marketing that are less confusing than whoever's driving that bus now.
You're right. The problem is stated multiple times in the article. As is usual, most of the statements do not address knowledge. But Marilyn's own statement did. However she did not address motivation.
Monty himself claims that his motivation varied depending on his mood. The actual game had more complications. And his statement about the real game was, "My only advice is, if you can get me to offer you $5,000 not to open the door, take the money and go home."
The statement of the problem is the guarantee, just like the statement of the problem is the guarantee that there is always 1 car and 2 goats, that you always get to initially choose 1 door, etc.
It’s still wrong. He needs to declare (or at least he needs to consistently) open an empty box; not any random box or a box of his choosing at his whim. If he opens a random box; you have not learned anything about the keys GIVEN he opened an empty box
This paper adds that in as an assumption after the prompt, which I’m pretty sure is not the original prompt
If I understand correctly, you’re saying Monte’s intention (randomly picking an empty box vs purposely picking an empty box) is effecting the odds that the box in hand has keys?
Also, do you have any evidence that this isn’t the original?
The probability of A given B is the probability of A and B divided by the probability of observing B. And the probability of observing B depends on counterfactuals of various sorts. "What would happen if...?" And that's where intention comes in.
In this case B is "Monty opens an empty box". The probability of the event B depends on Monty's knowledge and intent. If Monty knows where the prize is, and always avoids it, then Monty always opens an empty box. Probability 1. If Monty is clueless, then Monty opens an empty box with probability 2/3. And if Monty is knowledgeable and malicious, then Monty opens an empty box with probability 1/3.
Event A is that you have found the prize and Monty found an empty box. We're assuming that this is the probability that you initially found the prize, and so has probability 1/3. And so we get that Savant's Monty leaves you with odds (1/3)/1 = 1/3 of having the prize, ignorant Monty leaves you with odds (1/3)/(2/3) = 1/2 of having the prize, and malicious Monty leaves you with odds (1/3)/(1/3) = 1 of having the prize.
I find it absurd that I've never looked at it this way and recognized the fourth possibility. HELPFUL Monty knows the answer, and is giving you every chance. So if you had the prize, helpful Monty would show you that you're a winner, otherwise helpful Monty will give you another chance. What helpful Monty changes is the probability of A and B. If you had the prize, you would have been shown it. Therefore the probability of A and B is 0, and you really, really want to take Monty's hint and switch.
> If I understand correctly, you’re saying Monte’s intention (randomly picking an empty box vs purposely picking an empty box) is effecting the odds that the box in hand has keys?
Sort of. If you’re saying the next box is chosen at random then there are 2 of 6 possible end games in which the key is chosen; 2 of 6 in which you pick an empty box and can switch for the keys; and 2 of 6 that both of the remaining are empty.
Since the prompt says that you did in fact open an empty box, that removes the 2 where you open the keys. So it’s 50/50.
When you know for a fact that the keys will never be chosen, the probability of picking an empty box when you chose an empty box goes from 50% to 100%. Meaning it now occupies twice the probability space. That’s now it’s 2/3 chance of winning.
You truly learn nothing if Monte randomly opens one of the doors and it is not the keys.
> Also, do you have any evidence that this isn’t the original?
Be kind. Don't be snarky. ...Edit out swipes. ...Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".https://hackernews.hn/newsguidelines.html
Not the parent, but to me it generally means 1 million (likely non-dev, regular people) users in 5 days.
For me personally: I have had success asking for code snippets and general brainstorming in areas which are not my forte, all the while using a very nice and clean UI.
No. I work for a FAANG company at the moment and Microsoft was my previous employer and i can confirm that Microsoft significantly underpays when compared with FAANG.
Well, when I left in 2010 it was extremely true. Not even remotely in the ballpark. According to Levels.fyi they pay about 50% more now, but still less than any FAANG.
My impression when I was at MS was that they hire you at a competitive market salary, and their HR claims to do surveys and keep your yearly increases in line with market rates, however it seemed pretty easy for increases to not keep pace with market rate increases, in part because the market rate has increased pretty steadily lately.
I don't think they're the only ones with this issue. Job hoppers can get bigger raises than people staying and climbing the ladder "the old fashioned way".
I'm not sure I agree with you, but it can vary with the time period being considered and for me it's been a long time.
Also worth noting that while many in Seattle complain about housing costs, cost of living is much lower than in the bay area. That was definitely part of my calculus for accepting an MS offer years ago.
The important metric is what percentile of the market band each company targets. The word on the street (blind) is that MS pays median to 60th, while G/FB pay at 90th percentile. Granted with how MS stock has performed from 2016 and onward, actual compensation has been pretty good, depending on when someone joins.
