Easy solution: Add a large margin for uncertainty.
- Posts
- 4
- Comments
- 1452
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- Posts
- 4
- Comments
- 1452
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
This is why you should never ever share an article or post it as a source for what you are posting without thoroughly reading it.
In the vast majority of cases when I debate with someone online and they link sources to substantiate their claims, it turns out that their own source proves them wrong.
I mean, it does make my job of disproving them easy, but it's still unnecessary.
The real real answer:
Companies don't care whether AGI is ever achieved. All that matters to them is to look hype and fresh enough that investors think they will the AI race.
Large companies don't care about the product, they don't care about the customer, they don't even care about whether they will ever make money. They are just a horse to bet on for investors, so all they care about is looking good in a way that investors dump their money into the company.
It's nothing else than NFTs but for people with actually serious money.
Why are you happy about that change?
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Yeah, they could just as easily pivot to “Well, sure, autism was around before that, but it didn’t happen nearly as often.”
In fact, that was their actual argument. This is what Trump said:
First, effective immediately, the FDA will be notifying physicians that the use of, well, let’s see how we say that. Acetaminophen. Acetaminophen. Is that okay? Which is basically, commonly known as Tylenol. Can be associated with a very increased risk of autism. So taking Tylenol is not good. I’ll say it, it’s not good.
Within the rest of the rest of the speech you can clearly see where Trump goes off script and does his regular monkey-in-a-suit act, and he says stupid shit as always, but that up there is the core claim: "Can be associated with a very increased level of autism."
That's a claim that's totally not affected by the "but autism existed before Tylenol" argument.
The whole argument is a strawman, nothing else. And that's really infuriating because there are ample real arguments for this point. It's not hard to argue that Tylenol has no link to Autism. But making up a strawman argument and butchering to even tear that strawman down is ridiculous.
Edit: It makes me think that this meme wasn't actually created by anyone who is against Trump. It feels so incredibly dumb and easy to disprove that it probably was created by a magat to make fun of everyone who doesn't worship Trump.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
People died already 10 000 years ago.
The Ford Model T was released in 1908.
Anyone trying to tell you that being run over by a car kills people is entirely full of crap.
There's real arguments that can be used. No need to publish weak crap that's easily refuted.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Adding to that what @Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works said: “links to” doesn’t mean “is exclusively caused by”.
That gotcha would only work if that was the claim.
So the argument reads a little like “People died before the Ford Model T entered the market, so obviously deaths aren’t caused by cars running over pedestrians.”
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Adding to that: "links to" doesn't mean "is exclusively caused by".
That gotcha would only work if that was the claim.
So the argument reads a little like "People died before the Ford Model T entered the market, so obviously deaths aren't caused by cars running over pedestrians."
The air quote is usually signed til the end of the quote. It being done in parallel to the spoken language doesn't really have an equivalent in purely sequential written language.
But yeah, I'd be kinda confused if someone quoted a longer segment and only used the air quotes super briefly before the first word, ending them before the first word started.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Am I doing this right?
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
I guess we can.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
@meowmeowbeanz@sopuli.xyz is totally right. The meme is based on a wrong premise.
It claims that Autism was a known thing in 1911 (true), and that Tylenol was created in 1955 (misleading since the active ingredient, Paracetamol was created in 1878 and was in wide use before the brand Tylenol was created). Then it implies that the argument is that Tylenol is the only cause of Autism and then poses that as a contradiction.
Logically, that's like claiming that some People died in 1700, and that the Ford Model T was only created in 1908 and then claiming that thus it's nonsense that cars can kill people.
On the one hand it ignores that the active ingredient of the medication was in use far earlier than that one random brand showing up, and on the other hand it claims that the argument with Tylenol and Autism is that every single case of Autism happens due to Tylenol, which pretty much nobody is claiming.
So the meme is just wrong on many levels.
So instead of making up and disproving a lie, why not use actual science? There's overwhelming scientific evidence that Paracetamol has no effect on Autism.
One might say that this doesn't really sway those who choose to ignore science in favour of their own gut feelings, but on the other hand, does a fallacious lie sway them?
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
How on earth is that a thing? Do Americans just read the first two letters of a name and then give up?
I mean, as an Austrian I get the confusion between Austria and AustrALia (emphasis added so that Americans can also see it), but SwEDEN vs SwISS is just wild.
I didn't talk about american prisons nor am I american. I'm kinda astonished at your leaps of imagination. Don't make up things when discussing.
Pretty much every country has prisons and in most countries they are an institution of reform that often actually works.
And seriously, compared what we did here in Europe just 100-300 years ago, even american prisons aren't all that bad.
Already 400 years ago we had the "house of correction" system ("Zuchthaus" in German), which were for-profit labour camps that anyone could be sent to, even for things like being depressed or if your employer judges that you didn't work hard enough.
There everyone was doing forced labour (usually the hardest physical work they could find) and if you didn't do it, they'd whip you.
In most European countries that system was in active use until WW2, in some even into the 70s.
This was seen as a merciful system, since it was the alternative to the wide-spread corporal and capital punishments even for minor crimes.
In the 17th century you could be publically flogged or get a finger cut off for something as petty as theft. In some regions you could even get the death penalty for similarly small crimes.
So while the US prison system is quite horrible by the standards of civilized countries, it's not when compared to prior systems.
Some form of law enforcement needs to exist, and compared to the alternatives we tried before, prison isn't that bad.
I like the modern take!
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
OP is using Physics as an euphemism, and then uses it as a fornicative for expletive infixiation.
Those aren't white papers. They are scientific papers.
White papers are written by companies as a marketing tool. The first two papers you linked above are written by universities and the last one by a research-focussed non-profit.
As per Wikipedia:
Since the 1990s, this type of document has proliferated in business. Today, a business-to-business (B2B) white paper falls under grey literature, more akin to a marketing presentation meant to persuade customers and partners, and promote a certain product or viewpoint.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_paper
It's a marketing presentation masquerading as a fake scientific paper.
White papers are shit written by marketing people who try to make their little ad sound like something academic. In truth these white papers are in equal parts misunderstandings, wrong and full of useless fluff. They are AI slop, often completely without any AI involvement.
If someone is serious about the content, they call it a documentation, reference or datasheet.
I worked in a startup that was expanding to the US. For that purpose we hired two sales people with really good connections to the largest potential customer company in the US.
We had this product on our price list. It was a small and relatively inexpensive product (in the order of a few €100, while most of our other products had four to six figure prices). This product was stuck in development hell. We had a half-functioning prototype with the wrong chip in there, and it would need a full rework. It was a terrible product and far from usable.
So that new sales guy calls up my boss, the CEO, who's a notorious lier and proud of that fact and asks him if that device is ready to be sold. The sales guy says they don't have any customers asking for this and it's totally ok if it's not ready to be sold, he just wants to know whether it's ready.
With no need and no pressure at all, the CEO says "Oh, it's completely finished. You can sell that with no issues at all."
The sales guy believes it, and tries to sell this to that one biggest potential customer. The customer likes the idea and asks for a demo. Of course, we cannot provide one.
That was it. That customer blacklisted us and never bought anything at all from us. It burned the two sales people, they never managed to get any of our products sold in worthwhile quantities and a year later we shut down the US division.