opsiprogram

Have you considered that their deplatforming of a sitting president was justified? I don't understand how you could decide that this article is silly right off the bat, unless you 1) think buzzfeed is just silly or 2) already just think these platforms ban "conservative" voices and so this article is just delusion. But I personally don't think that just the fact that facebook removed the president suggests they clearly have a liberal bias. In fact it seems like they have agonized about removing him/these non information channels like alex jones for years. Unless you think they just shouldn't remove anyone... but they are a private company - not a public square..

I haven't had this much fun since September 9th, 1999...

Well ... the fact that it isn't tells a story about what people really found problematic w/ Facebook and the NY Post.

Interesting... honestly having seen some of GPT-3's output I'd be curious how well it performs here. One of the things that I think can still give GPT-3 away (GPT-2 as well) ... is that even if the text feels real, it lacks a deep emotional cohesion. Sometimes this can feel like an advanced word salad generator, some poetry can be recognizable this way, because some GPT poems can seem 90% real, but when compared to a poem a human wrote they just lack a a "punch". Of course this test will be quite different... but the idea that GPT-3 can out perform human text on a task to get people to do something will be quite a strong argument for its potential impact on economy/GDP!

Didn't the whole generations fight for something more complex than "the right to be not told to social distance during a pandemic"? Democracy, actual freedom of speech, freedom from power structures etc.... what rights have we given away? I haven't heard of people being arrested in many western countries for violating these stay at home orders (but there's any infinite list of right wing provocateurs bemoaning the orders). The idea that we've permanently lost rights seems a little silly when the government is desperate to open the doors (prematurely if you ask me) to local business again. Also this conflation of a higher R0 with a death rate is not correct. If you calculate the death rate for the world it's not 1/10000, a higher R0 doesn't mean a smaller death rate directly. And no one is making the tradeoff on fatality rate, but rather human life. "1% fatality rate" is 90000 dead people, which will be and could be much much worse with no social distancing. I would put up w/ some social distancing to prevent more pain to that many more people - absolutely.

The idea that we "stopped" the world economy doesn't really make sense from the point of view that lockdown orders don't apply to the economy, but rather to people moving around. A lot of industries will suffer but the idea that there is an economy switch which is easy to turn on/off as a trade off for human life doesn't seem realistic. If the virus is more contagious than expected, I don't follow your logic... that it's so bad that we might as well stop trying to protect ourselves? Also the idea that one person wants to view the world with a certain level of restriction "what more do you want" seems a bit bizarre. It's quite a wakeup call that even with these mitigation steps the virus can still spread. Things will be exponentially worse if we let up, not linearly worse. Also of course it's odd to blame "scientists" globally as though there is a single scientist who thought that the R0 value was 2, and now there is a smarter one who thinks it is 6....there are thousands and thousands of people sifting through data, in addition to layers of governments and nations and news outlets interpreting and communicating this information. No doubt this analysis from Los Alamos is only possible w/ data time and talent. We will probably learn much more about this virus moving forward, but I don't think that renders all old information or work pointless.

what instances are you referring to that get buried?

What are "lies" that Aaron Sorkin likes which he is conflating as truth? Also are you suggesting because the New York Times has a paywall that no one should publish any "open letters" like somehow he's involved in the paywall?

Pretty sure that is the point...? The United States won't be safe. So I'd assume if you accept this paper, the answer is yes you should be.

Yea this was my impression too. I've worked with HIPAA data and usually I had to remove far more than just like a "name" for it to be de-identified.

How would you combine HIPAA with another data source to identify the individual? Not suggesting it can't be done, just wondering how one might do that? Being able to link data that can identify a person to some de-identified would only be possible if the original data was not properly de-identified right?

Ironically on your point, a book seems like a poor way to send a message to this particular president...

Everything depends on taste but I love Neuromancer, it's really good at building a complicated world that isn't overburdened and I find the notion that it is "boring" kind of crazy! It almost reads like a thriller. Immediately one of my favorite books when I picked it up. It's certainly of our time, one of those books that you won't believe was written when it was. And it doesn't really feel dated, we might still be heading towards the world it portrays, hard to say... haha

Seriously!!! I literally have told so many people this and they just think I'm insane but I love this game!!

What is the financial interest he has in breaking facebook? How's it related to his failure at The New Republic?

Yea but that's okay right... people can write that. It's actually probably more effective than an "objective" piece. It's persuasive because the author's clearly loves the vibe, and describes it in a weirdly beautiful way. Which got me to buy into it, as a software developer myself. And the contrast with how the valley is portrayed normally is refreshing. (FD I don't live there, but I did really like this piece.)

This doesn't seem like it has anything to do with the technology discussed... and what is your comparison country? Which US airports have you been too?

I work with a group using machine learning for drug discovery (I'm not a biologist/chemist) but the bio people around me loved to talk poorly about Watson's drug discovery tool.

Lots of focus on the algorithms in the comments here, but from what I could glean generally they lacked domain experts when developing the datasets... we spend 90% just finding the best data... and even then it's tricky. I think they may have had lower standards for the input into the system... garbage in garbage out.

I guess it depends on... what "work" means. So I worked on Deep Networks for quantum chemistry (I'm not a physicist or chemist but) I can tell you people were ecstatic about the possibility that the approximations that the neural nets come up with might get closer to real physics than current approximations right now. This w/o any needed advancements. Some challenges are so difficult in these areas that approximations are the best that are possible. It's kind of similar to drug discovery now.. like if there are models which can help narrow down potential molecules / targets, that has tremendous potential even if the system needs to be double checked by a person. So it's hard to see "don't work" as anything but buzzy. BUT I will agree with you neuroscience will help develop our understanding of cognition.

I just wanted to blast these other applications, because I think people get this idea that AI has to be AI for anything interesting to happen... but there are really niche applications where people don't think these tools are experimental. And what you describe may already be happening, Geoff Hinton's critique of modern deep nets seems to be a call to get more biological. (Thinking of capsules nets).

What is considered to be "top of game" in deep learning in your experience... does that apply to just researchers like Ian Goodfellow who come up with completely novel methods for ML algorithms, or does it extend as far as people who are just using the methods that others developed effectively or in new ways? I know thats a weird question, but I am planning on looking into deep learning jobs after finishing my (MS) curious what the market value is for people who have experience implementing the systems , vs the people inventing new architectures. Because I won't have a PHD... It seems like somewhere along the way its a pretty extreme jump to ask for 1,2M or even 500K instead of just 100K~200K... wondering if you have any advice for how someone new might prove themselves... I guess beyond the standard stuff (have a nice github, try to replicate papers etc...)

"and seeing this smart condom article ... finally it all clicked...we were living in a dystopia"

Taxpayers actually subsidize almost every industry. States and various local governments give tons of incentives and loans of different kinds to projects / startups and companies for different reasons. (one popular reason is generally to get companies to create jobs in their area), but the US federal government will also fund private enterprise which could create new and emerging industries. The government usually does this for it's own self interest. The government wants to take on these projects to boost the economy or industries. Using perfect economics... it's not optimal not to pick winners in a market but the world has a funny way of making things more complex than basic economic models (ex the energy industry, where overtime it is not advantageous to allow the market to pick non renewable resources but the market still might until everything is gone :) )

It seems like crony capitalism refers to a scenario where the money from government investment goes directly to the pockets of players in the industry. (this is what is believed to have happened in Russia over the last 2 decades..one example being multi billion dollar construction projects for olympics with nothing to show for it).

That doesn't seem to be what happens in the United States (in most cases). Most major innovation still needs the government to chip in. Google's alphabet (so far) has show that this kind of innovation system is really hard for a private company to drive ever when they have almost unlimited resources. So if we have clear evidence (and we do... Moon landing , internet, electric cars, new space race, self driving ) government investment drives us forward (in aggregate) what is morally wrong about the US government participating the economy?

And not to nit pick but are you sure the dollar figure really doesn't matter? There's a profound difference between ~500 million (the loan Tesla actually got) and 4.9 billion dollars (fake number pushed by media w/ agenda)....

how have tax payers been milked with regard to Tesla?

Sry genuinely confused which pop is brainwashed? China or did you mean the US? Also I don't think the UK should have that list. The fact that the US doesn't is a major not minor detail. I'm not trying to compare and contrast the UK and Russia, I was comparing the US and Russia.

Actually seems like they do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Russia

The US maintains no such "list" mentioned in this article.

Also, not to spin your words.... but couldn't help it here: "as long as you don't cause problems for oligarchs in charge" kind of seems like the definition of authoritarianism. "Citizens will okay as long as they don't cause problems for those with power/ in control."

It correctly classified me (I am a bot) w/ 96% accuracy.

Hahaha the amount of attempted XSS and SQL injection in the guest book...

Haha let me get back to you once I finish replicating the paper (not using QQ but a sandbox) which we have to / get to do for hw :)

haha i read this headline and thought to myself "breaking textbook RSA is EXACTLY what I was just learning about in class today" and then I noticed one of the authors is my professor

How do you feel about bitcoin then? This is happening in plain view... you don't need to assign motives and mix in nation states, bitcoin is the most obvious example of pure speculation and literally is printed money with no attachment to fiat....