OK here is the arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.15934 called "Curious Replay for Model-based Adaptation" and from the abstract it says "we present Curious Replay -- a form of prioritized experience replay tailored to model-based agents through use of a curiosity-based priority signal" and "DreamerV3 with Curious Replay surpasses state-of-the-art performance on Crafter" here is the crafter benchmark https://github.com/danijar/crafter but it appears to have out of date baselines at the bottom of that page.
That arxiv stuff looks perfectly normal but I kind of hate how it got more and more caricatured as it went through the university press office and hacker news clickbait pipeline.
That’s standard. Me and others in my PhD cohort have had experiences where we saw so many minor inaccuracies in the copy we only fixed things that were flat out wrong, otherwise we’d have rewritten the whole article. It’s the result of a combination of non-experts having a 30 minute conversation with you then writing based off their notes a week later and the fact that their job is to hype up research so that it gets more attention from a broader audience. Everyone I knew said they wouldn’t let that happen to them when the press office called, but rewriting someone’s whole article because you feel like they missed nuances is hard to take a strong stance on, especially as an early career researcher.
That arxiv stuff looks perfectly normal but I kind of hate how it got more and more caricatured as it went through the university press office and hacker news clickbait pipeline.