What I like about this writeup is that it quietly demolishes the idea that you need DeepMind-scale resources to get “superhuman” RL. The headline result is less about 2048 and Tetris and more about treating the data pipeline as the main product: careful observation design, reward shaping, and then a curriculum that drops the agent straight into high-value endgame states so it ever sees them in the first place. Once your env runs at millions of steps per second on a single 4090, the bottleneck is human iteration on those choices, not FLOPs.

The happy Tetris bug is also a neat example of how “bad” inputs can act like curriculum or data augmentation. Corrupted observations forced the policy to be robust to chaos early, which then paid off when the game actually got hard. That feels very similar to tricks in other domains where we deliberately randomize or mask parts of the input. It makes me wonder how many surprisingly strong RL systems in the wild are really powered by accidental curricula that nobody has fully noticed or formalized yet.

You never needed DeepMind scale resources to get superhuman performance on a small subset of narrow tasks. Deep Blue scale resources are often enough.

The interesting tasks, however, tend to take a lot more effort.