I think ELI5 means that you simplify a complex issue so that even a small kid understands it. In this case there is no need to simplify anything, just explain what a term actually means without assuming reader understanding nuances of terms used. And I still do not quite get how ELIA can be considered hostile, but given the feedback, maybe I avoid it in the future.
You sound offended. My apologies. I had no intention whatsoever to offend anyone. Even if I am not diagnosed, I think I am at least borderline somewhere in the spectrum, and thought that would be a good way to ask people explain without assuming I can read between the lines.
I get a slightly uncomfortable feeling with this talk about AI safety. Not in the sense that there is anything wrong with that (may be or may be not), but in the sense I don't understand what people are talking about when they talk about safety in this context. Could someone explain like I have Asperger (ELIA?) whats this about? What are the "bad actors" possibly going to do? Generate (child) porn/ images with violence etc. and sell them? Pollute the training data so that the racist images pops up when someone wants to get an image of a white pussycat? Or produce images that contain vulnerabilities so that when you open that in your browser you get compromised? Or what?
I don't think that the point was that there are no for loops in SQL. I think the point was that almost always using for loops is wrong and super inefficient and there is a much more efficient way to just use joins instead.
> What kind of applications would this be useful for? What can you build with an AI data science intern that's right 75% of the time?
I have written a bunch of more or less complicated SQL during my career. And I am pretty sure that if I need to write a SQL statement that's anything but select * from table, my output won't work 75% of time.
I may be special case, but typically if I work on a hard problem, it is not a single hard problem but a sh*tload of connected simple problems. If I can get someone to solve the simple problems 75% of the time correctly so that I can spend my time figuring out how those simple problems are to be connected, I'm ore than happy. And that's exactly how I use chatgpt. I have learned not to ask too complex questions from it. But the simple ones, it mostly aces and when it does not , they are easy to spot, as it is not that I could not have solved them myself, I just did not want to spend time for that. Now, if only the chatgpt was not almost as lazy as me to produce long simple stuff, that would be awesome.
> First, you gave to either understand the underlying technology, or someone you trust have to understand it sufficiently to be able to say "this is bullshit", or "this is a great novel idea that makes a lot of sense".
> Then you invest a bit of your really disposable income in it
Sorry, but I find it a bit funny that in your "winning strategy" you seem to invest on the second step regardless if you in the first step ended in the "this is bullshit" or not. (full disclosure, so far, every crypto thing I have seen has fallen to the "this is bullshit" bucket in my opinion. But I guess my "if it looks, walks and smells like bullshit, don't touch it with a ten foot pole" is not a winnig strategy.)
Quoting: "While Google does not use these reports to take direct action against violations"
Given e.g. pinterest in the google results, I find it difficult to imagine as sure way to waste your time uselessly than to report SEO spam sites to google. It is obvious they do not care the slightest bit.
> Outdoor CO2 might be rising dramatically > dramatically rising outdoor CO2 leads to dramatically rising indoor CO2 > too high a concentration of indoor CO2 might have an impact on our cognitive abilities.
Are you really claiming there is some uncertainty whether the burning of fossil fuels will actually raise CO2 levels of the atmosphere? I have thought that the discussion is whether the rising CO2 causes global warming or not.
And if we agree that burning the fossil fuels increases CO2 in atmosphere (forget the damn global warming, we are not talking about that) Do you claim that there is no reason to believe that the indoor CO2 will also rise? I hope you understand that kind of claim to be so weird that I would expect you to elaborate a bit more why you think that would not be the case.
Finally, whether the increased CO2 actually has any effect on cognitive capabilities, that is of course the main topic in the discussion here. I have no further comments on that one.
I think their point was that increasing CO2 in atmosphere makes it more difficult to keep indoor levels acceptable.
First, if you start from 600pm instead of 300, you reach 1000 ppm faster. Adding to the insult, it is much more difficult to ventilate the excess CO2 away, if the air you use to ventilate contains in itself already 600ppm instead of 300ppm.
I think that is CO2e, which should be a different thing to my understanding. (CO2e is used to estimate the greenhouse gas potency of other gases like methane. Whereas I think eCO2 is some kind of estimate of amount of CO2 in the air, but what, exactly, I do not know)
because my google-fu was not good enough to find those....
Regardless, I would be curious on the same questions about real world accuracy on those as well.
- What is the real world accuracy I can expect from this kind of sensor, with and without calibration?
- is it enough for calibration just to go outside and assume some number between 400 and 500 (assuming outside means not just next to industrial chimney)? If not, what would be better calibration process?
This may be a bit naive question, but how does Google know that the virtual phone is not a real phone and the signal is not true? In a way that is not spoofable?
I guess you do not need a data plan. Or even phones. Just spin up n android emulators and spoof them with the gps data you want? (Disclaimer: I fully expect that to break multiple TOS clauses so I take no responsibility whatsoever if anyone tries this one.)
Honestly curious and hopefully not rude, but how can you concentrate on anything? Or does your work/life not require you to concentrate ever/most of the time on anything?
(I have turned all but phone call and sms notifications off on my phone. I will check my email/whatsapp when I want and see notifications there as needed. If someone has something urgent, they know how to call.)