bvc35

Thanks!

Thanks!

So far I have taken one introductory class on AI in general, but it did not cover machine learning. I took one class on machine learning, but I only grasped the basics of several algorithms from the class. These classes, and the textbook I've partially completed, are the extent of my knowledge.

Thank you for that suggestion.

I am an undergrad trying to break into AI and machine learning research. Hopefully this will be useful. Does anyone know any other resources that will be helpful? So far I've just been reading AI: A Modern Approach, by Russel and Norvig.

The bulk of academic work is chasing grants, not "curiosity driven research". If universities want professors not to leave in droves to tech companies that will consistently give them funding and cut away the bullshit that eats up the majority of a professor's time, they should try competing, rather than bemoaning that professors are no longer following the sacred path of academic asceticism.

Use two VPNs sequentially.

Make sure you already live in San Francisco and use the government to cap out your rent to the detriment of literally everyone else.

If this isn't a sign that Google is a monopoly, I don't know what is.

I'm not qualified to make a diagnosis of any kind, but this at first glance suggests that he's a narcissist.

In many US states, liquor sale is not a free market.

They're all made up numbers

All numbers are made up.

Free speech in America isn't just valued as a legal right before the government, but as a general principle. Most people think that free speech in most situations (not just before the government, and with a few restrictions) benefit everyone.

I think they have a monopoly on social media.

What's real mode?

Because people don't like Donald Trump.

San Francisco is perhaps the most materialistic community on earth, full of people who don't care how bad things are for others if they themselves made it (and you can too!), full of people who want rights for gay people but don't care if gay people who aren't obscenely rich can live in their city. I would expect San Francisco to be the last place to deliberately help poor people.

If you ask an economist, he will define economics as the study of human action, making him an expert on nearly (or entirely, depending on the economist) all disciplines, questions, and problems.

The big "Oh shit" moment will be when AI and robots can perform any task a human can perform better and/or cheaper than a human can, which would make it fiscally unwise to pay a human for any kind of labor. Even if humans could still be better at creative pursuits (such as writing, music, and art, until AI possibly betters us at that too), that is not feasible for 99% of people to survive on.

No. If I see a kid in a car, I don't know how long he or she has been in there. Temperature in closed cars rises dramatically and unpredictably, in ways that affect children and infants more quickly than adults (in some cases, it might hurt a child or infant in literally a few minutes). If taking a child with you for a few minutes is too much for someone to handle, I seriously doubt if they have the fortitude to be a non-negligent parent.

Everyone knows that the United States of America, like almost every nation and people on earth, has a violent past filled with ethnic cleansing, wars, and genocide. Are you suggesting that inherited citizenship should be done away with?

With men, the sexism is on the same class as "look at how good these black students are doing!"

When the oven will burn you if used incorrectly, and Amazon gives police departments (who don't know how ovens work) the controls over the oven regardless of their provable technical ability and with no oversight, we should definitely throw away the oven.

If you crank up the frequency of mentioning women, you are still pushing a woman-specific agenda and tacitly admitting that women still need your help to succeed.

We don't merely make predictions based on patterns we currently observe. We also make predictions and reason about the past based on reason, causality, and other theories we can demonstrate to be true.

You see? You are still able to make theories based on what you know and causality, and we can debate about which theories are most likely to be true. Not directly observing something is the beginning of theorizing. We don't just give up on knowing.

You still have to excavate it just in case you do find something unique or historically significant.

You can develop on the property, but you should also have to pay for archaeologists to excavate the site and identify artifacts of historical value. History is too full of examples of foolish cultures of the past destroying historical artifacts because they don't like them, think they are inconvenient, think they aren't significant, or want to use them as building materials. There have been plenty of cultures who basically thought "What's the point in preserving this stuff if we know the history of this stuff?" The interest of the world to retain and understand historical evidence is more important that the interest of relatively few people to make marginally more money.

If I were reading that article, I would want to read that she is female and Hispanic because the personal story of a Hispanic woman (probably) overcoming unique challenges to reach that position in the country is very interesting and notable.

Why write about women specifically unless your intention is to emphasize the accomplishments of their sex in the field? This sounds a lot like "write about women more, but don't say you're writing about someone because she's a woman."

What a damn shame.