logoalt Hacker News

dparktoday at 3:06 PM6 repliesview on HN

I see this sentiment pretty regularly, and I don’t get it. Variable rewards is not sufficient to establish that it is “ basically gambling”.

Everything in life is variable reward. You invite a friend over, they might accept or they might not. Drive to work, traffic might be good or might be bad. You ask a colleague to finish a task, they might do it or might not or might do a good job or might not.

Everything is variable reward. Is everything gambling?


Replies

jodrellblanktoday at 5:14 PM

> "Everything is variable reward. Is everything gambling?"

well, no. If you work overtime and get paid overtime, you are not gambling and that is not a variable reward.

Humans engage more with rewards that are intermittent and variable. Like Futurama's scene from 'The Scary Door' where the character says "A casino where I'm winning, I must be in heaven! A casino where I always win, that's boring, I must really be IN HELL!". A constant predictable reward is boring, less engaging. So if you know you get no overtime, but sometimes your boss rewards you with $5 coffee voucher, sometimes a free pizza dinner, sometimes double-time pay for the time worked or a half-day off, now you might be gambling 1hr overtime for an intermittent variable reward.

> "Drive to work, traffic might be good or might be bad."

Good traffic is not a "reward" for driving to work(!) and you have to drive to work regardless so you are not risking anything [you might be risking your life, but you are not making a choice which can reward you with good traffic]. You might say that going a different route is a choice and a gamble which could reward you with good traffic, but traffic engineering does not work that way because if there was a consistently low-traffic route, everyone else would take that route until it was no faster than any other route. Traffic will generally be the predictable and similar every day, plus 'arriving at work early' is not much of a reward.

show 1 reply
smugglerFlynntoday at 3:23 PM

You invite a friend over, but raccoon appears. Then pigeon appears. Then friend appears but at the last second suddenly becomes a banana. You remember you are out of bananas so you order more and also some cola zero cans on your local grocery delivery app. You are back to the party, but now you have 5 friends in the room, and you run de-duplication query. Now half of your friend is sitting at the sofa, and another half becomes a quarter of banana. Suddenly bananas arrive so you need to open the door. Once you are back there are no friends, pigeons or raccoons but also no bananas and no cola - all the delivery results are gone. This seems to be urgent and important, gotta fix this first before going back to that friend invitation...

show 2 replies
rnjesustoday at 3:24 PM

i’m not sure “variable rewards” is the right term, but i do agree with the op that it is very similar to gambling.

regarding your examples, i think the difference is that with ai, you’re literally sitting in front of a machine, pressing a button, and (almost instantly) getting a result that, if not desired, can immediately be tried for again. you even spend “tokens” to do this, and at least in my native language, “token” brings to mind the coins you’d stick in a slot machine

show 1 reply
howunfortunatetoday at 3:11 PM

Same vibe as people saying "addicted to sugar" or "sugar hijacks your reward system"

Sugar is the original point of the reward system!

show 1 reply
utopiahtoday at 3:22 PM

No, if I use a ruler or a pocket calculator they will reliabley give me the correct result. There is no gambling.

Tadpole9181today at 4:43 PM

I would agree that 1-2 years ago models were more "slot machine"-esque - sometimes the output was good, sometimes the output was bad. And as a result, I primarily used them for auto-complete functionality and bouncing ideas around. In those workflows, you can easily ignore it if the spin is wrong.

Not everyone has the desire to work around the system, and many are diametrically opposed to the concept of AI. They get this perception that it's a slot machine because of that inconsistency, and then do the human thing of assuming that other people must just be flawed if they're different from them. They're "addicted to gambling".

Obviously, things have changed. Open models can still be like that, but are often so fast and cheap at iterating it doesn't matter. SOTA models aren't perfect, but are to the point that they're generally much better than the average developer.

But once that perception set in and the meme spreads, it's really hard for some to break out of it. Especially at the pace AI development has been moving. It's just that simple.