farresito 3 days ago

This is the first time I read that someone uses an acronym for ragebait purposes. The acronym "RL" is very well known. Dwarkesh's podcast is mostly AI related, so it's not a surprise that he will freely use acronyms. I think your take is very cynical.

Reply View 1 reply
  • [removed] 3 days ago
    [deleted]
    Reply View 0 replies
jsnell 3 days ago

That is a bizarre take. Dwarkesh Patel is publishing in a very specific domain, where RL is a very common and unambigous acronym. I'd bet it was immediately clear to 99% of his normal audience, and to him it's such a high frequency term that people finding it ambiguous would not even have crossed his mind.

(Like, would you expect people to expand LLM or AGI in a title?)

Reply View 0 replies
gpvos 3 days ago

[flagged]

Reply View 3 replies
  • sidibe 3 days ago

    Ok so now it's stupid or malicious to use RL as reinforcement learning on a blog about AI where everyone in the field has been referring to it as RL forever? Even wikipedia puts (RL) after reinforcement learning.

    Reply View 1 reply
    • gpvos a day ago

      That's the normal way to introduce an acronym in an article.

      Anyway, I was just saying that however irritating, it's likely just an omission out of forgetfulness, not deliberate clickbait. A minor application of Hanlon's razor.

      Seeing the downvotes and even a flag, it appears I'll have to lower my expectation of people's cultural baggage here.

      Reply View 0 replies
  • bbarnett 3 days ago

    There needs to be a new law, applicable to posts on the Internet of any kind.

    Because that law doesn't hold, when malice has a massive profit motive, and almost zero downside.

    Spammers, popups, spam, clickbait, all of it and more, not stupid, but planned.

    Reply View 0 replies
robrenaud 3 days ago

RLVR is the more particular term of art in this domain.

VR stands for verified rewards and is the single bit per rollout that is the heart of the post. Maybe we can convince dang to update the title.

Reply View 0 replies