Thanks for quoting this part of the paper. It's probably the most interesting part.
To add to what you said, though, I don't think of these phenomena in terms of random mutations. In other words, I don't think of these people as anomalies that do anomalous things; moreso, I think of it as following our growth imperative (i.e. the expected reward gradient), which, if we follow it long and hard enough, can lead to behaviors that appear anomalous.
One commenter below (kortex) really hit on what is at least my interpretation when he said "we are basically seeing an implementation detail come to light."
To add to what you said, though, I don't think of these phenomena in terms of random mutations. In other words, I don't think of these people as anomalies that do anomalous things; moreso, I think of it as following our growth imperative (i.e. the expected reward gradient), which, if we follow it long and hard enough, can lead to behaviors that appear anomalous.
One commenter below (kortex) really hit on what is at least my interpretation when he said "we are basically seeing an implementation detail come to light."