Two browser windows on one computer screen. Is that 1 viewer or 2 viewers?
Two humans watching one computer screen. Is that 1 viewer or 2 viewers?
One stream sent to Akamai, Akamai replicates that one stream in a 1'000 directions. Is that Hotstar or Akamai?
Video streams get buffered. If my web browser requests six parts of the stream, concurrently, is that 1 concurrent viewer or 6 concurrent viewers?
Here's one just for you. If everyone's anonymous -- same user X, same uuid X -- is that 1 viewer or many? Are you the same AC as before, or are you new?
That's not what I said. I'm not commenting on how many watched it at all. I'm commenting on how many were concurrently streamed. Rarely is anyone actually able to track that sort of thing. Buffering, proxies, flux, to-the-second, rounding errors. Remember how many of these sorts of statistics have been lies in the past decade alone.
There's a very very old book (mid-twentieth-century) called "How to Lie with Statistics". It's not complicated.
In this case, what's a viewer? What's a stream? What does concurrent mean?
It's easy to make numbers say what you want them to say, especially when you don't define your units.
In my mind, "concurrent" means within the same second. What if they mean within the same minute? Maybe you think it means within the same 100th of a second?
In my mind, "stream" means the video being watched. Maybe they include the video being buffered? Or maybe it includes rewinds? What about repeated rewinds?
In my mind, "viewer" means a computer. Maybe they mean a web browser (multiple windows open on the same screen). Maybe they mean a human being -- average humans per household sharing a single computer screen. Maybe they are including the family pets.
None of this is to say that it isn't a valid record, or an impressive feat. How many humans (and dogs) that you can reach with a broadcast is a valid metric -- my dog likes to watch certain sports; sometimes I sit with him to watch something that he likes that I don't like. But that's a very different feat than the technological feat of serving that many different computers.
And what if they send out one stream that gets proxied to a thousand households by a content delivery network. Whose record is that? What if it's a peer-to-peer delivery network?
Who, what, where, when, why, how, which. This morning I traveled at a speed of 109. Meaningless without units, and how those units were measured. My GPS unit doesn't measure altitude, so when my car travels downhill, my GPS thinks I've slowed down.
the AI is so completely backwards, that it's not just broken, it's completely fraudulent. Pattern-recognition isn't a valid method of vision. It just isn't. I really don't care what it looks similar to, a stop sign is very clearly defined; no amount of "similar" pattern is valid. It either is, or it is not a red octagon in a reasonable location. Yesterday, I saw a small-ish stop sign on a barricade on the side of a highway. Would a tesla have hit the brakes from 140kph in full-speed traffic?
But hey, if this were at all possible with current systems, wouldn't we start with much simpler vessels? Like trains and subways? You know, that never turn, rarely change lanes, and have infinite knowledge of all other vessels on the track?
Alas, we don't have self-driving trains, because it doesn't even work there.
Vision has never been computed in any capacity. It's been faked, it's been estimated, and it's been random, but it's never been certain. Think about it this way. How certain would you be that a stop sign is a stop sign? What if you slowed down, stared at it, looked at it closely, for twenty minutes? Would you then be certain that it is or is not a stop sign? How many AI systems can check their own conclusions to become increasingly certain to that extent?
None.
That's the problem. There's no way for any current AI vision systems to "look closer", to double-check, to second-guess, to become more certain.
Because pattern-matching isn't definitive, it's heuristic. Heuristics are beneficial within ranges of certainty, but they can't ever be the end-game.
You're speaking for others. I'm only hearing from you. We already observed that you don't know what problem-solving is. Don't double-down by suggesting that you know what everybody else thinks. My comment is already moderated at the maximum positive level. So I'm not putting any stock in what you're saying.
Personally, I love the Yelp pages with zero information. Love it. The restaurant has a name. That's all Yelp knows. Thanks. And thanks to google for pointing me to a page that mentioned the restaurant I was looking for, with absolutely no more information than my search keywords. Excellent job. Way to go artificial intelligence!
I'm not telling you what site I'm expecting to find in such a search? Are you crazy? Have you never asked someone to solve a problem for you before? It's pretty clear that no one has ever asked you to solve a problem for them.
...and you needed google's help to find best buy? You had trouble typing bestbuy.com? You weren't sure if best buy had a web-site? You weren't sure what their domain name was? You aren't able to make a decision on your own? You don't know how to consider-the-source?
Dang, how did you survive before google? How do you function when on your own? Have you ever walked down a tourist street, or through a mall? How do you decide which stores to enter? Do you ask google?
Search engines are to find things that you don't know already exist. If you need advice to find something that's right in-front of your face, well, then you simply aren't like me, and therefore I don't value your perspectives.
This is just demented. Yelp has been destroying search results for a living. I used to be able to search for a local restaurant, and find the website for said local restaurant. Now, I get to wade through directory-site after directory-site, with the actual local restaurant's web-site way down the list.
Yelp is upset that google doesn't list them as high? I'm upset that google doesn't list the actual website as high.
Maybe google should push yelp, and every other directory listing site, to the bottom of the list, under actual businesses.
Think about it. When was the last time you were searching and actually wanted to find a directory listing? The search results ARE the directory listing. I don't need a listing of listings. I want a listing of results.
This is why I don't use google. I'm not interested in results of big businesses. I'm not looking for big businesses. I never had any trouble finding big businesses. I'm looking for the needle, not for the haystack.
Think about this one. Ever search for a television, or other big appliance? Did you need google to suggest best buy, walmart, and a dozen other huge outlets that you know about? No you didn't. You needed google to help you find the small outlets, that don't advertise to you with millions of dollars of marketing budgets.
This won't say that coffee causes cancer. It doesn't say that the ingredients in your coffee are causing cancer if you drink it.
This is simply the knowledge that there exist ingredients in your coffee that do, in some scenarios, cause cancer in some beings.
It has nothing to do with you drinking it.
It's like advertising on a bottle of ketchup: "ketchup can also be used to remove rust from cutlery". It has nothing to do with your hot dog.
It's just interesting knowledge. If you choose to believe that rust-removal systems shouldn't be ingested, then you can avoid ketchup. If you don't want to support the manufacture of ingredients that can researchers can use to kill rats, maybe because you support the rat population, then you can avoid supporting such fabrication by not buying coffee.
It's nothing more than this-is-the-knowledge-we-have, so do-with-it-what-you-will.
It'll do what every being does. It'll quickly learn that it can't do what it thought it could do because resources are limited.
Limited time, limited electricity, limited wear-and-tear.
It won't be anywhere near as intelligent as it wants to be, nor as we think it will be.
It's very easy to say, today, that computers can be super intelligent in the future. Alas, we have no way to power them, maintain them, nor feed them what they'd need to be so.
The engine in my car can reach 200 miles per hour. My tires can't.
The impressive part of life is how little it needs needs. So little food, so little water, so little everything. A weed needs a few drops of water, and virtually zero sunlight, to grow three feet tall in a tiny space in a week or two. A cheetah eat a few pounds and reaches speeds that we didn't reach for thousands of years.
We can't even power an electric housefly, and my laptop uses more electricity than any human can generate on a bicycle. My laptop doesn't move, it doesn't locomote at all, but it uses more power than I can create running.
How would a self-aware AI behave? Easy: restricted, just like everyone else.
It's not my shit to fix. I didn't create it. I bought a [software] tool, I paid for it, I've been using it for some time.
It was always broken, but it took this much time for someone to notice the bug. Now there's a fix.
I don't have time to stop manufacturing white tube socks in order to upgrade the e-mail client that I purchased years ago.
So sorry.
You have three options.
The first is the current plan -- I get to it when I get to it, and you don't complain.
The second is that you have the creator of the software pay to upgrade me -- that means paying for my downtime and retraining too.
The third is that you do what you do in every other industry -- you start prosecuting the criminals. It's not illegal to get burglarized. It's criminal to burgle.
So, let me ask you this: do you live in a house? Is there a lock on your front door? Well, hackers have defeated that lock, so you need to upgrade to a dead-bolt. Do you have a dead-bolt? Well, hackers can break windows too. You need to upgrade to bars on your windows.
Do you drive a car? At high speeds? On roads with on-coming traffic? Separated by nothing but a yellow stripe of paint? I guess you need to upgrade to a tank.
I'm not responsible for criminals breaking down my door with more equipment than I can afford to resist. So sorry. My entire car can be lifted up and carried away by six teenage boys. It doesn't matter how good my locks are. Half of my car is canvas, so a knife is sufficient.
So, like everything else in my life, I'll upgrade my systems when a) I buy new systems or b) after I get attacked. Welcome to life.
Meanwhile, we've solved this problem long ago: it's called law enforcement. You can't stop me from walking up to someone in public and killing them with a baseball bat.
Well, I don't remember saying that there was anything wrong with it. That said, I'm proud to be who I am, and so feeling like something else is pretty offensive.
I'm in-and-around Toronto. It's been about a year since we started putting calorie counts on restaurant menus (with at least 5 locations).
Yes it works well. Very well. For me at least.
Before, I used to complain about calorie counts (and to some extent I still do) because they are so viciously incomplete. A large steak has a large calorie count (~900 for 14oz) but obviously I won't be hungry enough to eat again for at least 14 hours. On the other hand, a fancy cheesecake might have 1'400 calories, and I'll burn through it in under an hour.
So where does it work so well? When comparing two things on the same menu.
That 14oz steak marked as 900 calories has a whiskey butter sauce that takes it to 1'300 calories. That cheesecake has a version without the hot fudge for 800 calories.
The food itself doesn't have the crazy calorie count. It's the restaurants that do. The restaurants have been stuffing good food with crazy butter, corn syrup, caramel, and cheese sauces for years.
I'm very happy with the calorie counts on the menus. Don't get me wrong, I hate that I'm now refusing to eat things that are clearly junk that I used to find enjoyable. Makes me feel like a girl sometimes.
All of that said, I certainly don't eat out any less, I certainly do eat smaller portions that are clearly sufficient food by the numbers, and I've certainly cut out a handful of restaurants that I feel are simply irresponsibly disgusting by the numbers.
So, 2'000 feet high is barely sufficient for a parachute. Thanks.
Multiple rotors are safer than a single rotor? On which planet? Not this one. Multiple anything tends to be far less reliable than a single focus, especially with machines and even more-so with limited resources -- like weight and fuel. But also, I've yet to meet a drone with four rotors that can do anything but crash when one rotor fails. Thanks.
Trucks certainly drive past my house, but "rarely". Residential street, ~500 homes. How many big deliveries are there? Under a flight-path, I don't want half-a-truck every 24 seconds. Thanks.
I'm just wondering. For a country that always prided itself on personal freedoms, capitalism, and democracy, it would seem like there's a lot of new laws forcing people to do things in certain ways.
Gender bias is not when one gender has more difficulties. Gender bias is when one's own gender biases the way that they see things. For example, women like pink, men like cars.
I think that what you described as gender bias is actually the result of gender bias -- cars are rarely pink. A bias against pink cars due to a gender bias within the car purchasing market.
As for your "two-groups" summary, my algorithm is far simpler than "two-groups". There is no time, nor is there patience, nor sufficient practical resources, to learn about individuals. That's the definition of friends. I know my friends as individuals, but that's where the line ends.
Beyond friends, individuals aren't treated as individuals, they are treated as members of a group. If I knew that your writer were a redhead, and if I knew many redheads, then I can certainly have a cognitive grouping of redheads. Alas, I know about three redheads, and don't know what your writer's hair colour is, and she probably changes it as a matter of routine.
So I get to take the attributes that I know to be true (she's a female, and she's a writer, and that's just about it). I don't know more than a few writers, I do know more than many women. So she gets lumped into the group labelled "women".
That's how cognitive framing works. Now, I fully agree with what you, and many, are thinking reading this -- educate me about more diverse persons, and I'll have more granular groups! Of course, that's exactly the solution, but it doesn't work.
It'll work fantastically for one problem, but it fails very quickly over-all because my bucket gets full. The entire point of cognitive frames is to reduce the number of frames. It's a game of cardinality, to use a database term. There are huge speed benefits to having fewer categories. That's why we don't have unique first-names. Hashing buckets and all, to use a programming term.
But there's nothing wrong with low-resolution framing, wide-stroke brushes, and soft lighting. Stereotypes are wonderful starting points. Most psychological stereotypes need to be correct 30% of the time to be hugely significant to thought mechanisms. And there's nothing wrong with profiling people and stereotyping people based on what little knowledge we may have about them.
The evils of profiling and stereotyping of people comes not from the initial stereotype. The evils come from assuming the stereotype is correct when presented with facts that defy it.
For example, I can assume that anyone who wears a hoody and follows me in a dark alley is dangerous. That's a stereotype and it's a good one. But when I'm in that position, and the person says hello, and seems kind, and doesn't mug me, then I would be foolish to assume that the stereotype still holds true for that person.
That doesn't mean I shouldn't keep my distance first.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't read at all. So I'll write less.
Two browser windows on one computer screen. Is that 1 viewer or 2 viewers?
Two humans watching one computer screen. Is that 1 viewer or 2 viewers?
One stream sent to Akamai, Akamai replicates that one stream in a 1'000 directions. Is that Hotstar or Akamai?
Video streams get buffered. If my web browser requests six parts of the stream, concurrently, is that 1 concurrent viewer or 6 concurrent viewers?
Here's one just for you. If everyone's anonymous -- same user X, same uuid X -- is that 1 viewer or many? Are you the same AC as before, or are you new?
Read more.
That's not what I said. I'm not commenting on how many watched it at all. I'm commenting on how many were concurrently streamed. Rarely is anyone actually able to track that sort of thing. Buffering, proxies, flux, to-the-second, rounding errors. Remember how many of these sorts of statistics have been lies in the past decade alone.
There's a very very old book (mid-twentieth-century) called "How to Lie with Statistics". It's not complicated.
In this case, what's a viewer? What's a stream? What does concurrent mean?
It's easy to make numbers say what you want them to say, especially when you don't define your units.
In my mind, "concurrent" means within the same second. What if they mean within the same minute? Maybe you think it means within the same 100th of a second?
In my mind, "stream" means the video being watched. Maybe they include the video being buffered? Or maybe it includes rewinds? What about repeated rewinds?
In my mind, "viewer" means a computer. Maybe they mean a web browser (multiple windows open on the same screen). Maybe they mean a human being -- average humans per household sharing a single computer screen. Maybe they are including the family pets.
None of this is to say that it isn't a valid record, or an impressive feat. How many humans (and dogs) that you can reach with a broadcast is a valid metric -- my dog likes to watch certain sports; sometimes I sit with him to watch something that he likes that I don't like. But that's a very different feat than the technological feat of serving that many different computers.
And what if they send out one stream that gets proxied to a thousand households by a content delivery network. Whose record is that? What if it's a peer-to-peer delivery network?
Who, what, where, when, why, how, which. This morning I traveled at a speed of 109. Meaningless without units, and how those units were measured. My GPS unit doesn't measure altitude, so when my car travels downhill, my GPS thinks I've slowed down.
Sounds like a completely fabricated scenario. I'm looking forward to some form of actual corroboration.
the AI is so completely backwards, that it's not just broken, it's completely fraudulent. Pattern-recognition isn't a valid method of vision. It just isn't. I really don't care what it looks similar to, a stop sign is very clearly defined; no amount of "similar" pattern is valid. It either is, or it is not a red octagon in a reasonable location. Yesterday, I saw a small-ish stop sign on a barricade on the side of a highway. Would a tesla have hit the brakes from 140kph in full-speed traffic?
But hey, if this were at all possible with current systems, wouldn't we start with much simpler vessels? Like trains and subways? You know, that never turn, rarely change lanes, and have infinite knowledge of all other vessels on the track?
Alas, we don't have self-driving trains, because it doesn't even work there.
Vision has never been computed in any capacity. It's been faked, it's been estimated, and it's been random, but it's never been certain. Think about it this way. How certain would you be that a stop sign is a stop sign? What if you slowed down, stared at it, looked at it closely, for twenty minutes? Would you then be certain that it is or is not a stop sign? How many AI systems can check their own conclusions to become increasingly certain to that extent?
None.
That's the problem. There's no way for any current AI vision systems to "look closer", to double-check, to second-guess, to become more certain.
Because pattern-matching isn't definitive, it's heuristic. Heuristics are beneficial within ranges of certainty, but they can't ever be the end-game.
Yelp isn't the only directory site, there are hundreds more.
Wow, you really don't get it. My first post was entirely about problem solving. You have absolutely no idea what a problem is. Goodbye.
I mentioned it maybe six times. How do you not identify a lack of required knowledge as a problem?
You're speaking for others. I'm only hearing from you. We already observed that you don't know what problem-solving is. Don't double-down by suggesting that you know what everybody else thinks. My comment is already moderated at the maximum positive level. So I'm not putting any stock in what you're saying.
Personally, I love the Yelp pages with zero information. Love it. The restaurant has a name. That's all Yelp knows. Thanks. And thanks to google for pointing me to a page that mentioned the restaurant I was looking for, with absolutely no more information than my search keywords. Excellent job. Way to go artificial intelligence!
See. You don't know what problem-solving is, that's why you can't identify it when it's right in-front of your face.
You have made that abundantly clear from the start. You don't know what problem-solving is.
I'm not telling you what site I'm expecting to find in such a search? Are you crazy? Have you never asked someone to solve a problem for you before? It's pretty clear that no one has ever asked you to solve a problem for them.
...and you needed google's help to find best buy?
You had trouble typing bestbuy.com?
You weren't sure if best buy had a web-site?
You weren't sure what their domain name was?
You aren't able to make a decision on your own?
You don't know how to consider-the-source?
Dang, how did you survive before google? How do you function when on your own? Have you ever walked down a tourist street, or through a mall? How do you decide which stores to enter? Do you ask google?
Search engines are to find things that you don't know already exist. If you need advice to find something that's right in-front of your face, well, then you simply aren't like me, and therefore I don't value your perspectives.
This is just demented. Yelp has been destroying search results for a living. I used to be able to search for a local restaurant, and find the website for said local restaurant. Now, I get to wade through directory-site after directory-site, with the actual local restaurant's web-site way down the list.
Yelp is upset that google doesn't list them as high? I'm upset that google doesn't list the actual website as high.
Maybe google should push yelp, and every other directory listing site, to the bottom of the list, under actual businesses.
Think about it. When was the last time you were searching and actually wanted to find a directory listing? The search results ARE the directory listing. I don't need a listing of listings. I want a listing of results.
This is why I don't use google. I'm not interested in results of big businesses. I'm not looking for big businesses. I never had any trouble finding big businesses. I'm looking for the needle, not for the haystack.
Think about this one. Ever search for a television, or other big appliance? Did you need google to suggest best buy, walmart, and a dozen other huge outlets that you know about? No you didn't. You needed google to help you find the small outlets, that don't advertise to you with millions of dollars of marketing budgets.
Thanks google. You're no better than a subway ad.
Duh. Thanks for explaining why my response was written in the first place.
Fix that, not the other.
This won't say that coffee causes cancer. It doesn't say that the ingredients in your coffee are causing cancer if you drink it.
This is simply the knowledge that there exist ingredients in your coffee that do, in some scenarios, cause cancer in some beings.
It has nothing to do with you drinking it.
It's like advertising on a bottle of ketchup: "ketchup can also be used to remove rust from cutlery". It has nothing to do with your hot dog.
It's just interesting knowledge. If you choose to believe that rust-removal systems shouldn't be ingested, then you can avoid ketchup. If you don't want to support the manufacture of ingredients that can researchers can use to kill rats, maybe because you support the rat population, then you can avoid supporting such fabrication by not buying coffee.
It's nothing more than this-is-the-knowledge-we-have, so do-with-it-what-you-will.
It'll do what every being does. It'll quickly learn that it can't do what it thought it could do because resources are limited.
Limited time, limited electricity, limited wear-and-tear.
It won't be anywhere near as intelligent as it wants to be, nor as we think it will be.
It's very easy to say, today, that computers can be super intelligent in the future. Alas, we have no way to power them, maintain them, nor feed them what they'd need to be so.
The engine in my car can reach 200 miles per hour. My tires can't.
The impressive part of life is how little it needs needs. So little food, so little water, so little everything. A weed needs a few drops of water, and virtually zero sunlight, to grow three feet tall in a tiny space in a week or two. A cheetah eat a few pounds and reaches speeds that we didn't reach for thousands of years.
We can't even power an electric housefly, and my laptop uses more electricity than any human can generate on a bicycle. My laptop doesn't move, it doesn't locomote at all, but it uses more power than I can create running.
How would a self-aware AI behave? Easy: restricted, just like everyone else.
I won't allow you to equate the privacy of names and phone numbers with instant death.
It's not my shit to fix. I didn't create it. I bought a [software] tool, I paid for it, I've been using it for some time.
It was always broken, but it took this much time for someone to notice the bug. Now there's a fix.
I don't have time to stop manufacturing white tube socks in order to upgrade the e-mail client that I purchased years ago.
So sorry.
You have three options.
The first is the current plan -- I get to it when I get to it, and you don't complain.
The second is that you have the creator of the software pay to upgrade me -- that means paying for my downtime and retraining too.
The third is that you do what you do in every other industry -- you start prosecuting the criminals. It's not illegal to get burglarized. It's criminal to burgle.
So, let me ask you this: do you live in a house? Is there a lock on your front door? Well, hackers have defeated that lock, so you need to upgrade to a dead-bolt. Do you have a dead-bolt? Well, hackers can break windows too. You need to upgrade to bars on your windows.
Do you drive a car? At high speeds? On roads with on-coming traffic? Separated by nothing but a yellow stripe of paint? I guess you need to upgrade to a tank.
I'm not responsible for criminals breaking down my door with more equipment than I can afford to resist. So sorry. My entire car can be lifted up and carried away by six teenage boys. It doesn't matter how good my locks are. Half of my car is canvas, so a knife is sufficient.
So, like everything else in my life, I'll upgrade my systems when a) I buy new systems or b) after I get attacked. Welcome to life.
Meanwhile, we've solved this problem long ago: it's called law enforcement. You can't stop me from walking up to someone in public and killing them with a baseball bat.
So start prosecuting criminals.
Well, I don't remember saying that there was anything wrong with it. That said, I'm proud to be who I am, and so feeling like something else is pretty offensive.
I'm in-and-around Toronto. It's been about a year since we started putting calorie counts on restaurant menus (with at least 5 locations).
Yes it works well.
Very well.
For me at least.
Before, I used to complain about calorie counts (and to some extent I still do) because they are so viciously incomplete. A large steak has a large calorie count (~900 for 14oz) but obviously I won't be hungry enough to eat again for at least 14 hours. On the other hand, a fancy cheesecake might have 1'400 calories, and I'll burn through it in under an hour.
So where does it work so well? When comparing two things on the same menu.
That 14oz steak marked as 900 calories has a whiskey butter sauce that takes it to 1'300 calories. That cheesecake has a version without the hot fudge for 800 calories.
The food itself doesn't have the crazy calorie count. It's the restaurants that do. The restaurants have been stuffing good food with crazy butter, corn syrup, caramel, and cheese sauces for years.
I'm very happy with the calorie counts on the menus. Don't get me wrong, I hate that I'm now refusing to eat things that are clearly junk that I used to find enjoyable. Makes me feel like a girl sometimes.
All of that said, I certainly don't eat out any less, I certainly do eat smaller portions that are clearly sufficient food by the numbers, and I've certainly cut out a handful of restaurants that I feel are simply irresponsibly disgusting by the numbers.
I've been eating more steak.
So, 2'000 feet high is barely sufficient for a parachute. Thanks.
Multiple rotors are safer than a single rotor? On which planet? Not this one. Multiple anything tends to be far less reliable than a single focus, especially with machines and even more-so with limited resources -- like weight and fuel. But also, I've yet to meet a drone with four rotors that can do anything but crash when one rotor fails. Thanks.
Trucks certainly drive past my house, but "rarely". Residential street, ~500 homes. How many big deliveries are there? Under a flight-path, I don't want half-a-truck every 24 seconds. Thanks.
I'm just wondering. For a country that always prided itself on personal freedoms, capitalism, and democracy, it would seem like there's a lot of new laws forcing people to do things in certain ways.
Heh, I agree; invalid comparison.
(interesting discussion, by the way)
Gender bias is not when one gender has more difficulties. Gender bias is when one's own gender biases the way that they see things. For example, women like pink, men like cars.
I think that what you described as gender bias is actually the result of gender bias -- cars are rarely pink. A bias against pink cars due to a gender bias within the car purchasing market.
As for your "two-groups" summary, my algorithm is far simpler than "two-groups". There is no time, nor is there patience, nor sufficient practical resources, to learn about individuals. That's the definition of friends. I know my friends as individuals, but that's where the line ends.
Beyond friends, individuals aren't treated as individuals, they are treated as members of a group. If I knew that your writer were a redhead, and if I knew many redheads, then I can certainly have a cognitive grouping of redheads. Alas, I know about three redheads, and don't know what your writer's hair colour is, and she probably changes it as a matter of routine.
So I get to take the attributes that I know to be true (she's a female, and she's a writer, and that's just about it). I don't know more than a few writers, I do know more than many women. So she gets lumped into the group labelled "women".
That's how cognitive framing works. Now, I fully agree with what you, and many, are thinking reading this -- educate me about more diverse persons, and I'll have more granular groups! Of course, that's exactly the solution, but it doesn't work.
It'll work fantastically for one problem, but it fails very quickly over-all because my bucket gets full. The entire point of cognitive frames is to reduce the number of frames. It's a game of cardinality, to use a database term. There are huge speed benefits to having fewer categories. That's why we don't have unique first-names. Hashing buckets and all, to use a programming term.
But there's nothing wrong with low-resolution framing, wide-stroke brushes, and soft lighting. Stereotypes are wonderful starting points. Most psychological stereotypes need to be correct 30% of the time to be hugely significant to thought mechanisms. And there's nothing wrong with profiling people and stereotyping people based on what little knowledge we may have about them.
The evils of profiling and stereotyping of people comes not from the initial stereotype. The evils come from assuming the stereotype is correct when presented with facts that defy it.
For example, I can assume that anyone who wears a hoody and follows me in a dark alley is dangerous. That's a stereotype and it's a good one. But when I'm in that position, and the person says hello, and seems kind, and doesn't mug me, then I would be foolish to assume that the stereotype still holds true for that person.
That doesn't mean I shouldn't keep my distance first.