Initially the annotation of biomedical literature (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25592589/) but left academia for commercial use where we transitioned to arbitrage the market research and ephemeral task markets. It was essentially a research panel with a underdeveloped UI for tasks.. so abstract away AMT's tooling so it can be used by any buyer in the ResTech, Political Polling and Data Annotation space
My favorite part of AMT is always going to be figuring out that if we only paid in $0.07 intervals, their commission algorithm would round down to the nearest whole cent when their 20% commission resulted in a fractional cent on the unit transaction level, not the monthly invoice level. Was ultimately worth it to have implemented https://git.generalresearch.com/panels/amt-jb/tree/jb/flow/a...
> Initially the annotation of biomedical literature but left academia for commercial use where we transitioned to arbitrage the market research and ephemeral task markets. It was essentially a research panel with a underdeveloped UI for tasks.. so abstract away AMT's tooling so it can be used by any buyer in the ResTech, Political Polling and Data Annotation space.
Reading this is similar to how I feel when I've asked Claude about something it coded for me. As with Claude, I think I get it after reading it three times; you guys were a middleman that provided a simplified interface for Mechanical Turk?
> My favorite part of AMT is always going to be figuring out that if we only paid in $0.07 intervals, their commission algorithm would round down to the nearest whole cent when their 20% commission resulted in a fractional cent on the unit transaction level, not the monthly invoice level.
Amazon took 20% of all workers earnings for doing essentially nothing for years and years.. of course I take great joy in giving AWS as little money as possible.
Buyer A is presented with the following rate card:
< 10min targeting gen pop: $3
10 <= 15min targeting gen pop: $5
Of course they'll bid saying their 14 min survey only takes 9 min to complete. Buyers try to cheat pricing strategies of exchanges just as much as respondents try to cheat buyers on survey platforms. Both parties can't be trusted and have adverse incentives.
“ General Research combines coordinated operations to identify and neutralize foreign actors using technological advancements, international covert operations, and networking analysis as an Internet Service Provider.”
> Ripe with fraud, labor exploitation, political polling manipulation; our customers demand the best tools and security for reaching global audiences and securing respondent reliability at any scale.
> General Research Laboratories, LLC (“GRL”) is an aggregator of market research surveys in multiple marketplaces for business customers. GRL does not typically host consumer surveys which are conducted by other consumer-facing organizations....
So, just a middleman to give you fake/shady at best survey responses to pad your numbers, so big enterprises/concultancies can have data that say whatever they want. The rest of the website is just BS
Finally you get it. Only exception is that we run our own exchange now to do task bidding so we don’t need to deal exclusively with other companies to middleman. Core business is what’s called yield management (akin to DSP in adtech) where the best survey (is the user qualified for it, does it have the best pay, etc) is selected for traffic in <100ms. I’d only argue the shady companies are the ones paying proxies (like cint.com) and pushing paid user acquisition instead of surveys. We actively fund ontology development for better profiling targeting. but yes, big enterprises/consultancies can use and interpret the collected data however they want, not our responsibility and we have no legal rights over it anyway
It should be a bipartisan issue that a Swedish company is paying a UAE Residential Proxy company [1] to build tools that allow people from anywhere in the world to take US political polls that are used by both parties to collect election data.
Just for starters, you can't even think about soliciting online work from a panel without a robust residential proxy detection methods. We had to build our own:
Polling data isn't some guaranteed right or something. If you ask the Internet questions and then sell the collated answers, it's your job to authenticate the responses or your polls will be wildly wrong and people will stop buying them.
Which is already the case and nobody but a bunch of campaign contractors who can't justify their do nothing jobs anymore cares.
Obviously, a problem not even fully addressed by L2’s datasets. Sure, but the use of proxies to masquerade the identity of users being sold to researcher buyers that paid for a different service is fraud
Users/respondents lie, and many buyers/researchers are neo-luddites; most C level still come from the telemarketing days. A fun example: mobile targeting is terrible when off wifi because all survey platforms uniq identify users based off their IPv4, so any T-Mobile LTE users in the same city going through the same CGNAT often share profiling data that ends up conflicting, which ends up meaning they don't get sent into the best survey(s). The issue is even worse in heavy IPv6 countries like India+France.
Yes. Much better to leave these decisions to the Dear Leader who is infinitely wise and cannot be misled. Or to the People's Central Planning Committee, where they decide all the allocations and strip rich people's wealth if they aren't on board with the correct ideology. Such systems are non-broken and have yielded unmeasurable prosperity throughout the world wherever implemented.
> My favorite part of AMT is always going to be figuring out that if we only paid in $0.07 intervals,
That is hilarious! Was it a semi-random discovery due to interaction with the system and people, or did you intentionally looked to game the algorithm?
Do you know how much inn-n-out you can buy when saving ~$50 a day and still be in the positive! It came out of building our own ledger system and abandoning any Decimal or float operations early on.. then it sparks "I wonder how they do it and if it's correct??"
There's computational complexity, then there's human complexity. I've thought a lot about this over the years (I've made a bunch of puzzle games, and puzzlescript, an engine/language for making grid-based puzzle games), and the only paper I've read that's made me think 'huh' was "Difficulty Rating of Sokoban Puzzle" by Jarušek and Pelánek ( https://www.fi.muni.cz/~xpelanek/publications/stairs2010-fin... ).
While I have a feeling that subject 'difficulty' is necessarily a slippery concept, they focus on 'context switching' as a key element of difficulty. In sokoban terms - how often you have to alternate between pushing one box and pushing another. This too can be gamed/trivialized, but, when I used it as a heuristic is was very good at generating the most horrifically difficult levels, much moreso than just going for 'solution length'.
On more general notions of complexity. In sokoban terms, the number of crates trumps everything else - for solvers I've written you quickly get exponential explosions with the number of crates. Nothing else really is significant.
I've also been working on solvers for more general classes of these games (puzzlescript games) and it's surprising how powerful generic solvers still are. PuzzleScript+MIS https://dekeyser.ch/puzzlescriptmis/ (not by me) is one powerful tool that uses PuzzleScript as a basis. I've worked on speeding up the solver a bunch (not currently integrated), figuring out good general heuristics for different kinds of games ( https://github.com/increpare/puzzlescript-labs has various experiments in this direction, including a modded version of PS+MIS). It's a nice optimizaiton problem for focusing on making numbers go down - there are lots of games to test on.
Wow, thank you for your input! The "alternation" proxy for difficulty is fascinating to me, doesn't feel like something I would have thought of right away. And, I guess I wasn't aware of how much thought goes into designing Sokobans :)
I think the crates trumping other complexity metrics isn't entirely obvious to me. For problem 15 in the OP's post, author says it was too expensive to compute at runtime in the browser. From a human perspective, it's not apparent why, as a large part of the solution is very repetitive. It feels as if there should be a more condensed representation for iterating over problems like that one.
If I may gauge your opinion on it, have you looked into MazeBench? It comes from LLM benchmarking circles, but seems to suggest a search space that's too difficult for LLMs, even with tools, to solve. Curious how much overlap the PS/MIS solvers would have with solving something like this.
> From a human perspective, it's not apparent why, as a large part of the solution is very repetitive. It feels as if there should be a more condensed representation for iterating over problems like that one.
I'm not sure how 'in' you are, you might know this already, but for sokoban IIRC the recommended way is to treat things is topologically - you always do a flood-fill empty space from the player so that the decision isn't whether to go up/down/left/right on this turn but which accessible side of which crate to push. It decomposes quite well, and maybe makes the complexity a bit more obvious? Hmm...
I haven't looked into mazebench, but yes this is very related stuff.
I was on a forum that had one member who is very knowledable on the subject of the forum. But now he...only ever responds with "I asked gemini your question, here's the answer:", and it's a real shame. His online person has become totally hollowed out. (These aren't like newb question threads, these are conversational topic threads). I think he doesn't know or care how valuable his point of view was. -_- Some communities aren't affected by this AI stuff negatively at all, but I suspect some communities (and people) are getting gutted.
( When he starts his own threads, they're now of the form "I asked gemini question X and this several-page-long attached markdown file is how it answered" )
Some people are lost to AI fascination quickly because they're curious and maybe a little lonely, or at least isolated.
Suddenly, they have a oracle that can endlessly tickle their curiosity (accurately or not) and follow them as deep into discussion as they can imagine, without ever growing tired or annoyed.
Unfortunately, in many ways, there's a lot of overlap between those people and those that had once made great community members online. They had the curiosity to have already dug deep into topics so as to become knowledgeable about them and discovered interest communities online as a place where they could invest themselves socially and feel less alone. Online communities were good for them and they were good for the online communities.
The story you relate here is not singular, and it's sad one to see, as it likely means these people are going to eventually find that they've lost the esteem and social credit they'd spent years earning and are now as alone online as they ever were before.
> Some people are lost to AI fascination quickly because they're curious and maybe a little lonely, or at least isolated.
There's a scene or an arc in Mr. Robot where the FBI agent behaves this way with her Alexa. I've also heard/read tales of parents realizing just how much their kids interact with Alexa. It's easy to understand how having this oracle as you stated would be interesting to interact with if that's truly what it was. However, knowing how these LLMs work, I find it utterly uninteresting for that kind of use. Knowing how much they "hallucinate" just makes me not interested at all. I've had enough real life interactions with people that I have come to use the term "shitstory" when the person just clearly makes stuff up as they continue to talk about something they don't really know about. My favorite is when it's something I know a lot about while several people are listening and engaged with shitstory totally oblivious to the bullshit. Why would I want to do that with a service I'm expected to pay for?
Maybe reply with a different answer from a different AI and start dueling AI's. I will always prefer the old trusty Infobot [1] src [2] over any of the current AI's and their fancy schmansy algorithms.
I think the problem is the mismatch between the intended evocative tone of tricolon crescens and the triviality of a 'computer quirk' in the grand scheme of things. "Use figures of speech, but don't sling them around like monkey shit" - my literature teacher.
But the term 'Roblox Devs' can also include other children. You seem to be missing the point a bit that kids used to be able to make games and share them with their friends for free. Now they need a paid subscription and a face scan to do that.
Yes it makes sense when you apply it to adults, but Roblox was made for kids to share and play with other kids. When you look at it from that angle it makes no sense.
The step is a significant one, and Roblox has taken one other measure recently, restricting chat a lot for minors (https://x.com/Roblox_RTC/status/2043723470899437623) . I think this is a move to satisfy people concerned with child safety, not a cash grab. I think RB hq probably know they're making tradeoffs of keeping parents happy, while devs will be annoyed/fewer. But everyone can still make games and play them with trusted friends. Likely damages the network effect (Roblox's multiplayer aspect being one of its best parts), but oh well.
'Trusted friends' is the key term here. To become one you need to have a paid subscription and to submit a face scan or id, which is what most people here are against.
I for one will not let my child submit a face scan to Roblox in order to become a 'trusted friend', and so now they wont be able to play the games made by their friends.
I've been told by a lawyer that a common sensible step in closing companies in Germany is to first...reseat the company in the UK ... (at least pre-brexit - not sure if things have changed). Think of how bad and expensive the process has to be for this extra step to be worthwhile.
I have been trying to close a UK company for the past 2 years (created post brexit).
And reseat, as others say, is not as easy; the gravity of decision making has to be in the country of incorporation; if your main shareholders and directors are physically in Germany and you reseat the company to where-ever, Germany is going to see and act like this is a de-facto German company. Hence you gain nothing, you get more paper work.
You're saying you get nothing, but you perhaps underestimate how time-consuming and expensive even the easiest company shut down in the Germany is. (I had a very smooth process winding down my company in the UK - you have my very sincere sympathies that things are a bit rockier for you).
>if your main shareholders and directors are physically in Germany and you reseat the company to where-ever, Germany is going to see and act like this is a de-facto German company. Hence you gain nothing, you get more paper work.
Looking online, here's a german tax-advisor who talks about the strategy of liquidating your company by first merging it with a uk company, saying you can close a company in 4-6 weeks by this process (though they recommend against it after brexit for liability reasons, but mention Ireland and malta as options). In germany you have a year of waiting, and lots of additional notary/accounts work. (OTOH, I don't know how you get it down to 4-6 weeks and avoid the uk's company house gazette notification period - they must pick a different kind of company - if your fees for closing down a company in germany are going into the thousands (or tens of thousands) for notaries, liquidators fees, and the like).
Once again, not my specialty area, I just...wanted you to know that it does happen, is a specialty area of work for some companies, and it's presumably not irrational behaviour.
interactions between the various mechanics in the games likely yield countless surprises, and let you build something considerably more elaborate than thesum of its parts..
The Puzzle Boy / Kwirk series of games is Sokoban-based, but has 3 different mechanics on top of that: turnstiles, pits (that can be filled by blocks), and blocks larger than 1x1. One of the things I love about it is that, each mechanic is interesting on its own, and each combination of mechanics results in levels with very different feels. Lots of puzzles with a bunch of mechanics try to throw tons of them into each level, and each level ends up feeling very samey. But judicious use of combinations can lead to a lot of interesting variety.
