Incredible stochastic algorithm, gets more reliable the larger your input, incredibly fast, trivial to implement and deterministic on its inputs

A similar experiment I did comes to mind from 3 years ago.

For the fun of it I was trying to train a few deep neural network configurations (LSTM, a few variations of FCNs, ...) to trade shitcoins and downloaded 4 years of 1h candles.

The first easiest idea was to prepare the training data to fire three signals, buy, sell, do nothing (I know a terrible choice). The cost function was setup to do the simple thing and maximize the overall profit (I know an other terrible choice). Fast forward 30min of training and the final outcome is a model that outputs "do nothing" in 100% of the cases.

Not even adding some watermark? smh

ifunny

Even better, do the work at compile time to respect the customers resources:

const bool isPrime = false

I've seen so many game jam entries where the code is like this. Delicately balanced and using so many assumptions to just get the thing out the door.

It's funny when they decide to make a full game out of it and realize that it's gonna take them 6 months just to undo the tech debt of the original "demo"

"AI models have started training other AI models, by pressing The-Button-That-Trains-AI-models; this button was built 7 years ago by a bunch of online volunteers we won't ever credit."

The test suite probably looks something like this:

int tests_passed=0;
int tests_failed=0;
for(int i=0;i<100000;i++){
    printf("test no. %d: ", i);
    if(is_prime(i)==actually_is_prime(i)){
        printf("passed\n");
        tests_passed++;
    }else{
        printf("failed\n");
        tests_failed++;
    }
}
//...

The output is not the output of the algorithm, it's the output of the unit test.

95% of numbers up to that point at not prime. Testing the algorithm that only says "not prime" is therefore correct 95% of the time. The joke is that, similar to AI, the algorithm is being presented as a useful tool because it's correct often but not always.

maybe it would be better to say that it is stochastically accurate?

It's a decimal point, not thousands

also btw icymi, this is a post about LLMs

True