Deal or No Deal? End-to-End Learning for Negotiation Dialogues · HackerPapers discussions

Deal or No Deal? End-to-End Learning for Negotiation Dialogues — HN submission

Thu, 03 Aug 2017 14:42:10 GMT

Ask HN: Why don't news articles cite academic sources clearly?

I've noticed this over the years especially with science reporting. The news site will report on a study with quotes from both the paper as well the author. But nowhere on the page is an easy link to it or even just the title of the paper with author names. For example: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-artificial-intelligence-ai-chatbot-new-language-research-openai-google-a7869706.html They even say: "(That paper was published more than a month ago but began to pick up interest this week.)" In trying to find the paper I googled parts of the info. But my…

2 points; 1 discussion reply on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Deal or No Deal? End-to-End Learning for Negotiation Dialogues — mentioned by samfriedman

Tue, 01 Aug 2017 17:32:31 GMT

This story has really gotten legs somehow. The research is related to work with AI agents developing a trade/negotiation logic with shorthand language [0], but the media seems to have spun it into a tale of rogue computers being shut down in the nick of time. There have been some articles attempting to roll back the sensationalism [1] [2], but most of the headlines are still working the "scary AI needs to be shut down" angle. The actual paper in [0] is a very interesting read, and recommended if you want to get some idea of what the kernel of this story actually is. [0]…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Deal or No Deal? End-to-End Learning for Negotiation Dialogues — mentioned by iraphael

Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:48:26 GMT

[FLAGGED] This very misguided article seems to be a complete misunderstanding of two papers: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.05125 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.04558 None of the dramatic claims have any basis in real science, or real world events (e.g.: "it prompted concerns we could lose control of AI"? I'm 100% certain this came from the author's imagination). This kind of AI apocalyptic alarmism with no real basis is the same kind that created the first AI winter, and the complete misinterpretation of research in popular culture. Unless there's a very deep layer of irony I'm not seeing, this…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.