If the custodians of every major OS misinterpreted the same document in the same way, shouldn't we consider that the document itself is suspect / at fault instead?
much of SF believes the rest of the world revolves around their epicenter. The idea that people would not know what "The mission" was probably would not even dawn on people like story author.
If you asked somebody in IOWA where "The Tenderloin" was, they would understandably think you were talking about meat.
Yes, because the entire population of THE MISSION got together to proof the article.
That article was posted on "Curbed San Francisco," at https://sf.curbed.com/.../. If you really want to complain about this, shift your ire to whomever submitted it to Slashdot. They should have provided the additional context because no additional context was necessary in the article itself.
If you're going to cause panic with statistics, at least get your millions/billions straight:
"Natural disasters in the United States cost more than $300 million last year, far surpassing the previous record of $214.8 billion set in 2005, NOAA said Monday."
So many of us already use "gay" and "jew" as derogatory terms. Is it any wonder that Google's NLP picked up on that? What source do you think it learned from?
I appreciate your sentiment, and maybe they were operating under constraints like that... but it's irresponsible to present claims or conclusions without qualifying them. My statement can apply to those who published the paper or the people who wrote the article... or both.
There are plenty of ways for them to introduce additional controls without spending more money. "How regularly do you visit a doctor or mental health professional?"
I hope you're not asserting that it's okay for them to pass off conclusions like this (sans qualifications) just because they didn't have a big enough budget..?
I'm being pedantic, but if you notice everybody else complaining about the lack of controls (including myself), then you'll excuse some pedantry.
Your post is mistitled because it is not a "plausible explanation in TFA." They created a model, then tried to validate it with research. That fact that it "seems about right" to you isn't enough because it obviously "seemed about right" to them also. That's why they decided to conduct research to try to validate it.
Our collective problem is with the *research* itself. Novel idea? Check. Seems about right? Check. Research without proper controls in place? Bzzt. You have not proven your novel idea.
"However, the study pointed out that a high IQ was not the cause of mental illness, but it could be correlated with the highly intelligent community."
Or a high IQ could be correlated with better jobs and better health benefits, therefore leading to more diagnoses of mental illness.
Or mental health professionals could have more difficulty identifying mental illnesses in those with lower IQ.
Or.
Or.
Where are the controls? I realize that relying on subject-reported data in studies is necessary in some cases, but I believe they could've done better than this.
These are not new problems. If you're concerned about the explainability/predictability of what you implement, do something about it. You're going to be held responsible for its results/actions one way or another, and that is absolutely not a new concept, nor a concept unique to AI.
To illustrate, try replacing every instance of "AI" in that quote with "powerful technology." See:
"Powerful technology has great potential, but we need to steer carefully," Hoffman said on Halftime Report. Hoffman stressed corporate transparency when asked what happens if companies use powerful technology to attack nation-states. The possibility of manipulating how people consume information remains an unanswered question. During last year's U.S. presidential election, Facebook advertisements linked to Russia mainly focused on the states of Michigan and Wisconsin, and Hoffman says information battles are "in the very early days." Powerful technology must be improved, Hoffman says, to "[hold] corporations accountable" when nation-states are using the technology to attack. "Corporations normally deal with other corporations, not with governments," Hoffman said. The "ultimate" solution, he says, is "having more kinds of functions and features within powerful technology [and corporations, and governments] that show abhorrent patterns." That way patterns raise a red flag for humans to investigate, Hoffman noted.
I agree, and the language is even more vague.
95% of respondents were men. Cool.
The response rate of women was only 3%. Cool.
That doesn't just indicate the "2%" problem you cite. "% of respondents != response rate of "
When responding to questions like these, people subconsciously factor in how much a situation is likely to apply to them. Almost nobody thinks they will need heart surgery, and it follows that they'd be more liberal/trusting in their responses. Almost everybody can imagine the problems a robot-controlled savings account would cause them personally. We are not objective.
I've been following Broken Saints for probably two years now, back when they'd only completed the sixth chapter. I don't read any other web comics, but this one seemed to play more like a movie for me. For how much their presence on the web has grown, based only on the quality of the movies, makes them deserved of some credit. I'll be buying the DVD just so I can hear that soundtrack coming through the TV speakers.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish the court would rule that journalists and pundits must stop weaponizing the word "weaponize."
Are they Quietly Pursuing an Aggressive AI Plan? Or quietly and aggressively pursuing an AI plan?
If the custodians of every major OS misinterpreted the same document in the same way, shouldn't we consider that the document itself is suspect / at fault instead?
Source: https://www.menlopark.org/Docu...
"Facebook is planning 1,500 apartments, and has agreed with Menlo Park to offer 225 of them at below-market rates."
Oh Facebook has agreed to? That's nice of them.
Menlo Park requires new residential developments of that side to reserve at least 15% of new units for below-market rates. Guess what 15% of 1,500 is?
+1
much of SF believes the rest of the world revolves around their epicenter. The idea that people would not know what "The mission" was probably would not even dawn on people like story author.
If you asked somebody in IOWA where "The Tenderloin" was, they would understandably think you were talking about meat.
Yes, because the entire population of THE MISSION got together to proof the article.
That article was posted on "Curbed San Francisco," at https://sf.curbed.com/.../. If you really want to complain about this, shift your ire to whomever submitted it to Slashdot. They should have provided the additional context because no additional context was necessary in the article itself.
If you're going to cause panic with statistics, at least get your millions/billions straight:
"Natural disasters in the United States cost more than $300 million last year, far surpassing the previous record of $214.8 billion set in 2005, NOAA said Monday."
I agree. 5,967,000.0000 (zeros added for scary effect) kWh x $0.12 (going CONSUMER rate for electricty) = $716,040.00 per year.
Drop in the bucket.
This is not the first AI research center in Asia.
False equivalency, anonymous coward.
This is fine. No reason to artificially block efficiency.
Just stop giving Amazon tax breaks then.
Please, journalists, stop calling AI robots and robots AI.
So many of us already use "gay" and "jew" as derogatory terms. Is it any wonder that Google's NLP picked up on that? What source do you think it learned from?
I appreciate your sentiment, and maybe they were operating under constraints like that... but it's irresponsible to present claims or conclusions without qualifying them. My statement can apply to those who published the paper or the people who wrote the article... or both.
There are plenty of ways for them to introduce additional controls without spending more money. "How regularly do you visit a doctor or mental health professional?"
I hope you're not asserting that it's okay for them to pass off conclusions like this (sans qualifications) just because they didn't have a big enough budget..?
Or maybe I'm bitchy because I commented early but wasn't modded up. :'(
I'm being pedantic, but if you notice everybody else complaining about the lack of controls (including myself), then you'll excuse some pedantry.
Your post is mistitled because it is not a "plausible explanation in TFA." They created a model, then tried to validate it with research. That fact that it "seems about right" to you isn't enough because it obviously "seemed about right" to them also. That's why they decided to conduct research to try to validate it.
Our collective problem is with the *research* itself. Novel idea? Check. Seems about right? Check. Research without proper controls in place? Bzzt. You have not proven your novel idea.
"However, the study pointed out that a high IQ was not the cause of mental illness, but it could be correlated with the highly intelligent community."
Or a high IQ could be correlated with better jobs and better health benefits, therefore leading to more diagnoses of mental illness.
Or mental health professionals could have more difficulty identifying mental illnesses in those with lower IQ.
Or.
Or.
Where are the controls? I realize that relying on subject-reported data in studies is necessary in some cases, but I believe they could've done better than this.
These are not new problems. If you're concerned about the explainability/predictability of what you implement, do something about it. You're going to be held responsible for its results/actions one way or another, and that is absolutely not a new concept, nor a concept unique to AI. To illustrate, try replacing every instance of "AI" in that quote with "powerful technology." See: "Powerful technology has great potential, but we need to steer carefully," Hoffman said on Halftime Report. Hoffman stressed corporate transparency when asked what happens if companies use powerful technology to attack nation-states. The possibility of manipulating how people consume information remains an unanswered question. During last year's U.S. presidential election, Facebook advertisements linked to Russia mainly focused on the states of Michigan and Wisconsin, and Hoffman says information battles are "in the very early days." Powerful technology must be improved, Hoffman says, to "[hold] corporations accountable" when nation-states are using the technology to attack. "Corporations normally deal with other corporations, not with governments," Hoffman said. The "ultimate" solution, he says, is "having more kinds of functions and features within powerful technology [and corporations, and governments] that show abhorrent patterns." That way patterns raise a red flag for humans to investigate, Hoffman noted.
And I'll add: Holy shit, would I make sure I get my math right before submitting a story to /.
I agree, and the language is even more vague. 95% of respondents were men. Cool. The response rate of women was only 3%. Cool. That doesn't just indicate the "2%" problem you cite. "% of respondents != response rate of "
lol @ disgorge. Somebody is getting a lot of mileage out of their WOTD screensaver.
When responding to questions like these, people subconsciously factor in how much a situation is likely to apply to them. Almost nobody thinks they will need heart surgery, and it follows that they'd be more liberal/trusting in their responses. Almost everybody can imagine the problems a robot-controlled savings account would cause them personally. We are not objective.
TechCrunch wrote $220 (incorrect) instead of $320. WSJ got it right.
I've been following Broken Saints for probably two years now, back when they'd only completed the sixth chapter. I don't read any other web comics, but this one seemed to play more like a movie for me. For how much their presence on the web has grown, based only on the quality of the movies, makes them deserved of some credit. I'll be buying the DVD just so I can hear that soundtrack coming through the TV speakers.