Yes, we absolutely are different. Okay, maybe if you really boil down every little process our brains do there are similarities, we do also do pattern recognition, yes. But that isn't all we do, or all ML systems do, either. I think you're selling yourself short if you think you're just recognising patterns!
The simplest difference between us and ML systems was pointed out by another commenter - they are trained on a dataset and then they remain static. We constantly re-evaluate old information, take in new information, and formulate new thoughts and change our minds.
We are able to perceive in ways that computers just can't - they can't understand what a smell is because they cannot smell, they can't understand what it is to see in the way that we do because when they process images it is exactly the same to a computer as processing any other series of numbers. They do not have abstract concepts to relate recognised patterns to. Generative AI is unable to be truly creative in the way that we can, because it doesn't have an imagination, it is replicating based on its inputs. Although, again, people on the internet love to say "that's what artists do", I think it's pretty obvious that we wouldn't have art in the way we do today if that was true... We would still be painting on the walls of caves.
Machine Learning is such a better name. It describes what is happening - a machine is learning to do some specific thing. In this case to take text and output pictures... It's limited by what it learned from. It learned from arrays of numbers representing colours of pixels, and from strings of text. It doesn't know what that text means, it just knows how to translate it into arrays of numbers... There is no intelligence, only limited learning.
In general making classification more sensitive will increase your false positive rate, and making it less sensitive will increase your false negative rate. Neither is preferable! The question is whether you consider the cost of a false positive or negative to be higher... I think most would argue that a false negative is far worse if that allows a child/children to be harmed. Consequently, if you are erring on the side of convicting more people, you should also err on the side of "not maiming those people" because the chances are some of them are innocent.
I think the previous commenters point was that to get to something at the bottom of a pile of clothes, even if you know where it is, you have to move everything from on top of it, like a stack.
Yeah... If someone takes out a complex part of your production, is that going to just end your game because you can't practically divide your attention effectively? I can imagine a couple of ways around this, but it's a challenge. I suppose that's another layer of strategy in the whole game... But I also think unless it's very streamlined it's going to put a lot of people off.
Even if "eliminate Hamas" is the response, forcing the entire population out and bombing the whole fucking place is not the only way.
Doubly so, because if you kill and/or displace hundreds of thousands of civilians, how many of those do you think will remain civilians, and how many will subsequently be bolstering the numbers of Hamas?
The onus is not on this random internet commenter to produce an alternative. Can you really not think of one thing Israel could do that doesn't involve glassing what's left of a country?
I mean there's no reason that a perfectionist would be irritated by an 89 degree angle, so I suspect this meme has had its way with you just as intended
The problem with this conflict in particular is that taking the side of Palestine has become synonymous with taking the side of Hamas, or with simply being antisemitic. It's essential if you want to express any support for Palestine that you also painstakingly lay out exactly what you support and what you don't, otherwise.... Well, the onion said it best.
Well the speed of light is actually faster than you can reasonably comprehend... you can't see or experience the travel time of something going that fast. 300m is not unreasonable to understand once you've experienced it though - that's a big boat, but you can see one and get a sense of the scale.
They don't want to "kill Firefox" though. They want people to use Google products in all forms - using Google through Firefox is better than scattering users to other browsers without a Google default. By forcing users to Chromium they don't just kill Firefox, they direct users TO ever more Google products in the process.
The MCU shows (not you, Secret Invasion) have been the best thing they've put out over the past few years. I am speaking as an MCU addict.. can't really call myself a fan since the films mostly suck these days but I'll still watch em... yo ho ho
Do you have an example? Just curious.
Personally I'd rather have crowd sourced bias than the bias of one really rich dude anyways.