We know perfectly well that the art is behind glass and will not be damaged because they did it before. So it’s complete nonsense to say that it will potentially destroy the art.
Losing 2,000 litres of helium is possibly the worst part of this.
That is the error that the model made. Your quote talks about the causes of these errors. I asked what caused the model to make this error.
Sure, but which of these factors do you think were relevant to the case in the article? The AI seems to have had a large corpus of documents relating to the reporter. Those articles presumably stated clearly that he was the reporter and not the defendant. We are left with “incorrect assumptions made by the model”. What kind of assumption would that be?
In fact, all of the results are hallucinations. It’s just that some of them happen to be good answers and others are not. Instead of labelling the bad answers as hallucinations, we should be labelling the good ones as confirmation bias.
The email says that you can do it. It doesn’t say that you can do it without purchasing the upsell option.
The author mentions that some of the changes broke things, but it’s a long way into the article before the word “test” appears. It’s only point 6/7 of his recommendations.
Making changes with no test coverage is not refactoring. It’s just rewriting. Start there.
The top of this comment thread is a person claiming that men do all the hunting in every primitive society, not just hunting based on long distance running.
You came into the thread to criticise a paper that showed that women hunt in 50 different societies around the world. Even your estimate of 50% is plenty enough examples to debunk the “all the hunting” claim.
Women are perfectly capable of drawing a bow that is suitable to hunt monkeys, rabbits, squirrels, small birds, etc. Accuracy is more important than power.
If your strategy for hunting mammoths involves your physical strength, you’re gonna have a bad time.
You would need to be in luck. Let’s assume that they studied all 200 uncontacted tribes. To bring the overall rate to 50%, you would need 119 out of the 200 to be exclusively males hunting - 60% of those societies. The researchers studied 63 societies and found that 20% of them were exclusively males hunting.
But what’s the point anyway? The hypothesis is that males evolved to be bigger for hunting, even 50% of societies where women hunt is enough to make it implausible. In those societies, women are hunting in spite of their apparent size disadvantage.
I think you should ask yourself whether size is actually important for hunting. We don’t wrestle our prey. Size doesn’t matter if you’re bringing down monkeys from the trees with a bow and arrow, and size doesn’t matter if you’re trying to bring down a mammoth.
I suspect not. To get to 50%, they would need to study an additional 37 societies, and every single one would have to have only males doing the hunting.
You explicitly mentioned the Sentinelese. Exactly how would you go about this infrequent contact and observation with them?
In any case, let’s assume that hunting is exclusively performed by males in all of those peoples. How much would that change the statistic and the overall conclusion? 79% would be 72%
You think they should have surveyed the uncontacted people?
AI developers: your copyrighted work is such a small contributor to the AI’s output that copyright doesn’t apply. Also AI developers: but our AI won’t work without it.
I don’t think China wants that.
He has those weird psychological tricks, like standing funny, having a long tie, and the handshake thing. Getting people to say “hello, how are you” to him is probably one of those, and he’s upset that she sidestepped it.
We need to be transitioning to zero carbon as fast as possible, period, and even that isn’t good enough. Moderating our energy consumption is vital. There is a cliff at the end of the road and business as usual means driving on down the road.
I am not saying that we need to turn off our lights and heating. I am saying that we first-worlders use a lot of power on frivolous things that we absolutely can live without.
Your ICE has a significantly longer range, and the road network has evolved so that you can be reasonably confident that you’ll find a filling station when you need one.
Today I’m driving an EV that doesn’t have it, and I’m missing it. Different EVs have different ranges and not every filling station on the autobahn has chargers. On the other hand, there are lots of places just off the autobahn which do have chargers. It’s a different game. Your mileage may vary of course.
The Megane E-tech has functionality in its satnav that lets you plot a route with charging stations on the way, showing how much capacity you will have left when you get to them. Not essential, but very useful for somebody who is new to EVs.
Software that communicates with power companies to allow the car to charge overnight at advantageous rates, or even feed energy back into the grid. Again, not essential, but good for the customer and helps with the transition to green electricity.
As far as I can tell, Microsoft tried to hold off these anti-trust lawsuits by intentionally making the interoperability and feature-parity between its products shockingly bad.
The 5 bullet points do not sound like slang terms to me.