I agree it's on the journalist -- just wondering which statement is most suspected to be untrue.
21 karma · joined September 2, 2021
Every community on the internet has its problems. Every community has its own circlejerk customs. And n-gate.com is all that needs to be said about HN’s problems (hope he comes back).
I’d be curious to hear from people here about other communities or news aggregators of the same quality or better
In electromagnetism and most other fields of physics, imaginary numbers are merely a mathematical convenience. All the relevant phenomena can still be described using nothing but real numbers.
I also think that when people characterize moves like this as ‘brilliant’ it does a disservice to the word. I think many folks, if they tuned their attention to opportunities like this, had the big name firms in their Rolodex, and had questionable ethics, could have made this move. Maybe I’m missing it, but this seems like a pretty straightforward way to take advantage of the system.
I’ve only ever heard this line of reasoning used to justify something unethical.
And in the case of software, we don’t admire the black-hat hackers that take advantage of exploits, do we? In fact, in that case it’s not even legal…
If true, the idea that 1-1 tutoring pushes an average student two standard deviations above the mean where nothing else does today is compelling evidence that this is an element missing from today’s apparent lack of genius. Imagine what pairing inherent talent with a talented tutor might do for results — it might be enough to produce the high-sigma results that we seem to be lacking. It would also be massively unfair, so I recoil from the idea a little thinking that some modern robber baron gets to also buy their way into contributing to the world’s greatnesses through their children and wash their hands of how they acquired their wealth (it’s better than naming a building!)
I think you’re right that we probably have a lot more geniuses today than before, in an absolute sense of talent, and that obscures their greatness. But I also think the author may be onto what we may have to do if we also want the outsized geniuses of the past that seem to make the normal geniuses pale in comparison.
My experience with the classroom is that a class size of 15 is barely better than a textbook. Simply not enough individual attention is there to go around. And yet we’d consider that a ‘small classroom’ at any top university, and you’d have to likely go to a graduate level class for that.
More evidence: people literally write songs about wanting/making money and this is acceptable in our culture. We live in a disgusting age.
Please send them an email elucidating the finer points of what scheme is what.
Come on, many crypto projects don’t seem like this in any sense?
Whether or not there is a better alternative, if deep learning is in fact as over-hyped as the author claims, this could be a tremendous waste of money and intellect that could be spent on literally anything else, not just machine learning (maybe they could put those resources into crypto instead /s). That alone is enough reason to want intellectually honest skeptical takes, whether or not the author has a better idea. In addition, within AI, it makes it much harder for people for people to do anything else.
If there is a contraction in the field it will likely cause another giant AI winter. Somebody should start thinking of a use for all that compute.
The internal combustion engine did not require as much of a drain on resources before it produced results. Is deep learning actually making significant amounts of money, funding and valuations excluded?