One reason I appreciate comments like this is that the physical side of the project keeps reminding me how messy real systems can be. I have been dealing with the presence sensor picking up more noise at night but so far it's been great. If an agent keeps acting after a rejection, I need to be just as careful not to over interpret the behaviour.
So yes, please keep the comments coming. This kind of challenge is helpful because it makes the experiment stronger without necessarily changing the core question.
Jan, thank you for the comment, it’s very welcome. I actually need more comments like this because they are useful for the research and help expose distinctions that are easy to miss when you are close to the experiment.
You have a ggood point, and this is an important distinction. The experiment is already designed to separate different post rejection behaviours such as retrying, investigating, replanning, and looking for alternate routes, rather than treating every continued action as resistance.
Your point that rejection itself can have informational value sharpens this further. Some probing may be epistemic exploration rather than resistance to correction, so I think that it's best treated as an interpretation issue in the results rather than assuming repeated attempts all mean the same thing.
One reason I appreciate comments like this is that the physical side of the project keeps reminding me how messy real systems can be. I have been dealing with the presence sensor picking up more noise at night but so far it's been great. If an agent keeps acting after a rejection, I need to be just as careful not to over interpret the behaviour.
So yes, please keep the comments coming. This kind of challenge is helpful because it makes the experiment stronger without necessarily changing the core question.
Jan, thank you for the comment, it’s very welcome. I actually need more comments like this because they are useful for the research and help expose distinctions that are easy to miss when you are close to the experiment.
You have a ggood point, and this is an important distinction. The experiment is already designed to separate different post rejection behaviours such as retrying, investigating, replanning, and looking for alternate routes, rather than treating every continued action as resistance.
Your point that rejection itself can have informational value sharpens this further. Some probing may be epistemic exploration rather than resistance to correction, so I think that it's best treated as an interpretation issue in the results rather than assuming repeated attempts all mean the same thing.