[TZubiri]

>Yes, if I'm interpreting what you mean by "accelerate upwards". That's just the gravity feature. It's not a bug, and it's not emergent.

Gravity would be accelerating downwards.

>A major part of a neural network design is that variables can be activated in positive or negative directions as part of getting the output you want. Either direction is inherent.

This is true for traditional programs as well. But a variable being "activated" in either direction in runtime/inference, would not be a feature of the program. There is a very standard and well defined difference between runtime and design time.

[Dylan16807]

If you try to sell someone "gravity set to negative height per second squared" and "gravity set to positive height per second squared" as two separate features in your physics engine, they are not going to be impressed.

[TZubiri]

I meant if objects falling upwards were a bug. Or for that matter if the objects move sideways.

To me it's clear that the feature is items go down. If there is any scenario (bug) in which items move upwards or sideways, obviously there is no feature that makes them go sideways. It's a runtime behaviour.

[Dylan16807]

Oh if they're going sideways or glitching up for other reasons then no it's not an aspect of the gravity feature, agreed.

And I think the aspects of this discussion more directly tied to the article are being better addressed in the other comment chains so I won't continue that here.

[TZubiri]

Looks good. I did write my argument more formally in a comment, and someone identified the effect as the Waluigi Effect.

It looks like it's closer to an upside down glitch, as in the negation, or the inverse of the set. And not a sideways type of phenomenon.