Alice, Bob, and Charlie would all say "I find getting up the hills of San Francisco difficult". But "doesn't everyone find that hard" conflates the causes and severity of the difficulty for the three of them in a way that isn't useful for making their complaints feel heard, or addressing the complaints such that they don't have that issue.
For example:
Alice could get an electric wheelchair.
Bob could take public transit / Ubers up, or get rides from their friends.
> At the end of a day, if you ask for a nurse, should the model output a male or female by default?
Randomly pick one.
> Trying to generate a model that's "free of correlative relationships" is impossible because the model would never have the infinitely pedantic input text to describe the exact output image.
Sure, and you can never make a medical procedure 100% safe. Doesn't mean that you don't try to make them safer. You can trim the obvious low hanging fruit though.
It depends on whether you'd like the model to learn casual or correlative relationships.
If you want the model to understand what a "nurse" actually is, then it shouldn't be associated with female.
If you want the model to understand how the word "nurse" is usually used, without regard for what a "nurse" actually is, then associating it with female is fine.
The issue with a correlative model is that it can easily be self-reinforcing.
My concern around this space is less "does it make sense" and more "if the bubble collapses as I expect, what will happen to people who take the crypto/NFT money for granted"?
I'm more interested in solutions that I expect to be stable and last. I do understand why artists are hoping to cash on the NFT wave; I just worry that a lot of people will come crashing down along with the hype.
This is something they fail to explain in the movie, but the reason that the doctor is so trusted is because he comes from a school of indoctrinated physicians thought to be psychologically incapable of harm.
It's interesting, but it doesn't look like the reaction time windows are particularly tight. 500ms is a generous reaction time. And the FPS scenario didn't really test snap accuracy or reaction time, the limiting factor on completion time seems largely dependent on movement.
I think a more interesting metric of reaction time would be using a competitive FPS or fighting game, that require tight reaction times and decision making. That way, any change in reaction time will be reflected.
It seems like the author tested rote activities that were well within their comfort zone; I'd be curious to see how well they'd perform when trying to learn something new or work at something that they hadn't practiced before.
Alice is in a wheelchair.
Bob has a broken leg.
Charlie is unfit, but otherwise a healthy adult.
Alice, Bob, and Charlie would all say "I find getting up the hills of San Francisco difficult". But "doesn't everyone find that hard" conflates the causes and severity of the difficulty for the three of them in a way that isn't useful for making their complaints feel heard, or addressing the complaints such that they don't have that issue.
For example:
Alice could get an electric wheelchair.
Bob could take public transit / Ubers up, or get rides from their friends.
Charlie could take up running with friends.