To be honest, my bugbear is taht AI was always a misnomer, because it's not intelligent at all, precisely because of things like this. There is no line of thinking that leads it to believe that a 3D turtle is a rifle - if you asked it to tell you WHY it was a rifle, and it could pick out features on the image that look like a rifle from a certain angle, yes, you could claim it was intelligent. But it can't do that
Are you saying the purpose of the algorithm was to explain to "you" WHY it decided certain thing was a rifle, it was tested successfully before release, and yet it couldn't explain it to "you" ? Most algorithms I know of don't have this purpose - except to explain to the developers / support staff , that too typically only in debug mode.
If its purpose does not include explaining those decisions to "you", is there any failure in the situation you described ?
BTW, why shouldn't an AI that could write billions of sentences of English without ever writing "taht" except to point out your mistake be considered superior to you in prose writing ?
Most places on earth do not allow AI to drive cars on public roads. Some places that do allow, do so experimentally, provisionally. Bugs are not a coincidence but expected at current level of development.
Suppose they have a sign in their establishment that they take only cards, no cash. And my bad, I didn't notice. And their bad that they didn't notice my T-shirt message that I pay only cash and carry no cards.
The vegan is no less a killer than the meat eaters they consider below them
1. Ethics is anything but simple. So I will be only able to give an outline here since time for writing , reading a book on/. in our schedules is hard to come by.
2. Ethics of diet can be considered in 2 ways :
2a. Whether it was / is ethical to eat something in the wild settings. E.g. humans living in a forest, plucking an apple and eating it, or killing a deer and eating it.
Note that here, plant eaters are frequently not predators but reproductive assistants.
2b. Whether it is ethical to eat something in the industrial / agricultural era. Growing wheat / rearing chicken in your farm.
Here, frequently both plant eaters and animal eaters are predators at harvest time. But wheat would certainly go extinct without human support, and chicken would have a hard time. This may or may not play a role in deciding whether "killing" is bad in different scenarios.
But one has to concede that in spite of being weaker than many other competing species, chicken and wheat as species are doing well right now.
3. In both forest / agricultural settings, an animal eater is indirectly eating lots of plants the animal ate. Along with previous points, it is a complex calculation now to figure out how much of a "killer" one is when eating a particular food.
But in forest settings, animal eaters could convince themselves of having avenged the plants the animal ate. In agriculture settings, the animal eater is more of an eater of the animal's diet. Hence more of a killer.
1. With college degree holders correlation with divorce , one has to guess a lot :
1a . College degree is a proxy of IQ?
1b . College degree is a proxy of wealth ? Early childhood wealth or late life wealth ?
1c. Divorce rate is a proxy for ability to compromise ? Or complications in legal system regarding prenups, alimony etc. ?
1d. Divorce rate is a proxy for ill considered marriage ?
2. You still don't know what they think / feel about decisions when making those decisions.
Ah, so now I understand. YOUR response has been a blank stare , like it has been here, because you didn't understand their answer to "what do you mean by spiritual".
How do you guys think stuff can "degrade" in such conditions?
Americans bottle their pills in groups of hundreds. Every time they take one out - multiple come in their hand and they put back the excess in the bottle. Taking the microbial growth on their skin along with them. Along with oxygen - the second strongest elemental oxidising agent. Along with other microbes in the air at that time. Somebody sneezed in the room shortly before this event, so microbes in small balls are descending to the ground at a small terminal velocity, some of which land in the bottle because generally the bottle is held vertically while the cap is off.
Once the bottle is closed back, all these factors get a lot of time to work on your "vitamins". It is possible the vitamins do not degrade. Some of them, some of the time. But if you are saying it is impossible that the vitamins degrade during typical usage, you would have to provide stronger proof than proof by incredulity.
2. spiritual : definition 2 from http://www.dictionary.com/brow..., to some extent definition 1 too : An attitude that one's body, or the physical reality is not as important as one's spirit, in, say, fighting a serious disease. Since one may not be devoted to this attitude , it may or may not be religious.
the best basketball players are 7 feet tall or taller
This is a good proxy. Why ? 1. Height actually helps basketball playing. Presumably because game designers chose to keep the baskets high - though the advantages by height in acquiring control of ball cannot be denied. 2. Many people measuring one person's height will come to the same conclusions. So height means something - even though it varies in evening, morning, while thirsty etc.
If 85 is around the point at which people are economically productive, and 130 is the point at which
This is a bad proxy. Why ? 1. Measured IQ does not help in being economically productive, intelligence might. 2. There are various types of intelligence, we barely know all types. Presumably different types of intelligence help one be economically productive in different types of professions, but more data is needed. 3. IQ will be measured for different people differently - so in itself the number means nothing. Notably, for races, just adapting the IQ test to the upbringing of the subject improved the measured IQ of non-Caucasian races drastically.
I came across it plenty of times, but nobody can tell me what it means
... And you write many other sentences to describe your lack of understanding of "spiritual but not religious". Fair enough.
"Nobody can tell me" means you asked a few people , went to a few webpages which try to describe it ? Do you have any specific questions / concerns about their treatment of this subject ?
That is interesting. Could you tell me how these things are tested ?
I mean to say that just for testing if a few hundred households are deprived of power for few seconds, the power company may not get pats on its back. But if they don't test, they risk a massive failure. How is this dilemma resolved ?
You are clearly uneducated in elementary grammar. The post you are replying to is in the present tense. You are replying to it with something in future.
What will be in future does not justify what is in the present. Even if it will be exactly like you dream.
Prediction is difficult, especially of the future - Neils Bohr
Wow, you didn't even come across "spiritual but not religious" in your extensive research ? This phrase is being used for decades to describe the distinction you seek. One of the specific language Wikipedia offered to redirect me from "spirituality" page to the page for "spiritual but not religious" : so i know it must have been hard for you to avoid. Google auto complete suggestions also shows it quickly enough.
I see that you are easily confused into thinking that one word can mean only one thing : that phrase is "popular culture" enough for your level of thinking. There are other ways of distinction i point to for advanced learners.
Ok, this should be obvious but I understand how obvious things can be difficult to prove. How about this outline, can expand a point if needed ?
1. Trend : Governments getting more and more power over citizens 2. Trend : Government representatives getting less answerable to citizens
1 + 2 means Governments can do more to citizens and citizens will know less about it
3. By tracking across internet, companies can acquire information about people.
4. Information, by massive data mining, can predict e.g. who one will vote for. With some error bars, as usual.
5. Governments can "ask" companies for this information and no one will be any the wiser. See 1 and 2.
6. Many elections are narrow - Governments have significant motivation to remain in power by just eliminating a few thousand , or tens of thousands strategically placed citizens per year.
7. If the near and dear ones , and associates of eliminated citizens are subtly warned - number of citizens to be eliminated can be reduced drastically.
For dictionaries, a definition is useful if it can help users understand some text they would not have understood as well without the dictionary definition. Assuming a definition that is useful falls under "useful definition", various dictionaries have a useful definition of the word.
Slashdot Mirror
To be honest, my bugbear is taht AI was always a misnomer, because it's not intelligent at all, precisely because of things like this. There is no line of thinking that leads it to believe that a 3D turtle is a rifle - if you asked it to tell you WHY it was a rifle, and it could pick out features on the image that look like a rifle from a certain angle, yes, you could claim it was intelligent. But it can't do that
Are you saying the purpose of the algorithm was to explain to "you" WHY it decided certain thing was a rifle, it was tested successfully before release, and yet it couldn't explain it to "you" ? Most algorithms I know of don't have this purpose - except to explain to the developers / support staff , that too typically only in debug mode.
If its purpose does not include explaining those decisions to "you", is there any failure in the situation you described ?
BTW, why shouldn't an AI that could write billions of sentences of English without ever writing "taht" except to point out your mistake be considered superior to you in prose writing ?
It does output some answers that aren't on your list. So who's smarter ?
So ? The AI has a bug. And likely several others.
Most places on earth do not allow AI to drive cars on public roads. Some places that do allow, do so experimentally, provisionally. Bugs are not a coincidence but expected at current level of development.
Suppose they have a sign in their establishment that they take only cards, no cash. And my bad, I didn't notice. And their bad that they didn't notice my T-shirt message that I pay only cash and carry no cards.
What do you find in it that makes it so ?
It worked fine for me. What do you see in it ?
Wrong. The rational approach is to check a dictionary. Or several.
1. https://www.thefreedictionary....
2. https://www.merriam-webster.co...
3. https://www.collinsdictionary....
You might actually (gasp) understand what the other person is saying. Crazy talk, I know.
The vegan is no less a killer than the meat eaters they consider below them
1. Ethics is anything but simple. So I will be only able to give an outline here since time for writing , reading a book on /. in our schedules is hard to come by.
2. Ethics of diet can be considered in 2 ways :
2a. Whether it was / is ethical to eat something in the wild settings. E.g. humans living in a forest, plucking an apple and eating it, or killing a deer and eating it.
Note that here, plant eaters are frequently not predators but reproductive assistants.
2b. Whether it is ethical to eat something in the industrial / agricultural era. Growing wheat / rearing chicken in your farm.
Here, frequently both plant eaters and animal eaters are predators at harvest time. But wheat would certainly go extinct without human support, and chicken would have a hard time. This may or may not play a role in deciding whether "killing" is bad in different scenarios.
But one has to concede that in spite of being weaker than many other competing species, chicken and wheat as species are doing well right now.
3. In both forest / agricultural settings, an animal eater is indirectly eating lots of plants the animal ate. Along with previous points, it is a complex calculation now to figure out how much of a "killer" one is when eating a particular food.
But in forest settings, animal eaters could convince themselves of having avenged the plants the animal ate. In agriculture settings, the animal eater is more of an eater of the animal's diet. Hence more of a killer.
Yup, "necessarily", never goes with statistical correlation and proxy in even half as complex soft science research.
Your methodology is far worse.
1. With college degree holders correlation with divorce , one has to guess a lot :
1a . College degree is a proxy of IQ?
1b . College degree is a proxy of wealth ? Early childhood wealth or late life wealth ?
1c. Divorce rate is a proxy for ability to compromise ? Or complications in legal system regarding prenups, alimony etc. ?
1d. Divorce rate is a proxy for ill considered marriage ?
2. You still don't know what they think / feel about decisions when making those decisions.
OK, none of the posts in the thread make clear the ageing is in unopened bottles vs opened, but humans do make unjustified assumptions sometimes.
I prefer tablets in bubble packing, but yes bottles are quite common in the UAE.
Ah, so now I understand. YOUR response has been a blank stare , like it has been here, because you didn't understand their answer to "what do you mean by spiritual".
Awesome. Why don't you publish a refutation of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... and many of its citations ?
dry
Air has zero moisture content where you live ?
How do you guys think stuff can "degrade" in such conditions?
Americans bottle their pills in groups of hundreds. Every time they take one out - multiple come in their hand and they put back the excess in the bottle. Taking the microbial growth on their skin along with them. Along with oxygen - the second strongest elemental oxidising agent. Along with other microbes in the air at that time. Somebody sneezed in the room shortly before this event, so microbes in small balls are descending to the ground at a small terminal velocity, some of which land in the bottle because generally the bottle is held vertically while the cap is off.
Once the bottle is closed back, all these factors get a lot of time to work on your "vitamins". It is possible the vitamins do not degrade. Some of them, some of the time. But if you are saying it is impossible that the vitamins degrade during typical usage, you would have to provide stronger proof than proof by incredulity.
It's been a while since I taught in kindergarten.
I already demonstrated how religion and theism are independent. Further :
1. Anything one is devoted to, could be a religion . http://www.dictionary.com/brow..., definition 6.
2. spiritual : definition 2 from http://www.dictionary.com/brow..., to some extent definition 1 too :
An attitude that one's body, or the physical reality is not as important as one's spirit, in, say, fighting a serious disease. Since one may not be devoted to this attitude , it may or may not be religious.
What tense in this in : https://slashdot.org/comments.... ?
And the party you quoted from it in reply ?
the best basketball players are 7 feet tall or taller
This is a good proxy. Why ?
1. Height actually helps basketball playing. Presumably because game designers chose to keep the baskets high - though the advantages by height in acquiring control of ball cannot be denied.
2. Many people measuring one person's height will come to the same conclusions. So height means something - even though it varies in evening, morning, while thirsty etc.
If 85 is around the point at which people are economically productive, and 130 is the point at which
This is a bad proxy. Why ?
1. Measured IQ does not help in being economically productive, intelligence might.
2. There are various types of intelligence, we barely know all types. Presumably different types of intelligence help one be economically productive in different types of professions, but more data is needed.
3. IQ will be measured for different people differently - so in itself the number means nothing. Notably, for races, just adapting the IQ test to the upbringing of the subject improved the measured IQ of non-Caucasian races drastically.
I came across it plenty of times, but nobody can tell me what it means
... And you write many other sentences to describe your lack of understanding of "spiritual but not religious". Fair enough.
"Nobody can tell me" means you asked a few people , went to a few webpages which try to describe it ? Do you have any specific questions / concerns about their treatment of this subject ?
That is interesting. Could you tell me how these things are tested ?
I mean to say that just for testing if a few hundred households are deprived of power for few seconds, the power company may not get pats on its back. But if they don't test, they risk a massive failure. How is this dilemma resolved ?
You are clearly uneducated in elementary grammar. The post you are replying to is in the present tense. You are replying to it with something in future.
What will be in future does not justify what is in the present. Even if it will be exactly like you dream.
Prediction is difficult, especially of the future - Neils Bohr
Wow, you didn't even come across "spiritual but not religious" in your extensive research ? This phrase is being used for decades to describe the distinction you seek. One of the specific language Wikipedia offered to redirect me from "spirituality" page to the page for "spiritual but not religious" : so i know it must have been hard for you to avoid. Google auto complete suggestions also shows it quickly enough.
I see that you are easily confused into thinking that one word can mean only one thing : that phrase is "popular culture" enough for your level of thinking. There are other ways of distinction i point to for advanced learners.
Ok, this should be obvious but I understand how obvious things can be difficult to prove. How about this outline, can expand a point if needed ?
1. Trend : Governments getting more and more power over citizens
2. Trend : Government representatives getting less answerable to citizens
1 + 2 means Governments can do more to citizens and citizens will know less about it
3. By tracking across internet, companies can acquire information about people.
4. Information, by massive data mining, can predict e.g. who one will vote for. With some error bars, as usual.
5. Governments can "ask" companies for this information and no one will be any the wiser. See 1 and 2.
6. Many elections are narrow - Governments have significant motivation to remain in power by just eliminating a few thousand , or tens of thousands strategically placed citizens per year.
7. If the near and dear ones , and associates of eliminated citizens are subtly warned - number of citizens to be eliminated can be reduced drastically.
Voila - elections become useless.
About your signature / journal entry : are you saying it is possible that there may be no risk with being tracked by ad networks ?
Yes.
And by other definitions, it means something else.
1. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...
2. http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
How do you define "useful definition" ?
For dictionaries, a definition is useful if it can help users understand some text they would not have understood as well without the dictionary definition. Assuming a definition that is useful falls under "useful definition", various dictionaries have a useful definition of the word.