No way. The people at the forefront of AI, most of them will have a much harder time learning quantum physics. Yes ML is hard but it's nowhere near QE, theoretical math or physics.
The reason is simply because ML is incomplete and thus right now is more art then science. We only understand these neural networks from the perspective of an analogy. The curve fitting analogy. Its nowhere near something like general relativity where even an analogy doesn't convey full understanding.
And You're fucking rude. What the hell is up with that Wild u turn there into hostility. You need to fucking tone your shit down.
This is causal conversation not a scientifically rigorous paper making bold claims. That comparison with highschool was Totally uncalled for. Next time either ask nicely for evidence or if you want to be rude please do so somewhere else.
Of course it's nicer to give everyone a humane job. It's not about what's nicer. It's about reality. There's simply not enough jobs to go around if there are no bullshit jobs. Your statement here doesn't make sense to me. Yeah it's better but what does better have to do with the realistic consequence? Nothing.
Very little jobs for people with sub 80 IQ which makes up a significant portion of the population. If any of these people hold jobs it's most likely bullshit.
If millions are unemployed that doesn't mean they won't get paid. But if they didn't it doesn't mean money has no meaning. I didn't mention the consequences of that. You did.
All I said here is that if we get rid of all bullshit jobs. Millions will be unemployed. What that means is up to you decide, I simply stated the immediate realistic consequence of no bullshit jobs.
If you want to create a world where there's no bullshit jobs at all then you'd be creating a world where millions are unemployed.
We are rapidly heading in this direction with automation. AI is beginning to fulfill the final step in this process creating a world where 90% of jobs don't need a human.
I disagree. The colloquial understanding for logic is technical. OP is using the term incorrectly and in a strange way. I understand that most of us can still 'understand' his point but that does not mean he's using the term colloquially or correctly. Think about it.
I get what your saying here but basically the article and all responders are dodging the real issue here with this wordplay.
The OP article is actually saying CSS is not terrible. And people who disagree are saying yes in fact css is terrible. It's just a way to be not so on the nose about saying css is a shitty way to do things.
You missed my point which may be my fault as it's a bit obscure the way I said it. Let me rephrase it to be more clear:
I'm saying it's pointless to say or claim css is logical. He's using the term incorrectly. The real argument here is really about whether or not css is shitty or not shitty and using the term logical is not only dodging the point, but also awkwardly using the word logic.
I'm kidding a bit here. My post is actually agreeing with the parent poster but in a sort of roundabout deceptive way of appearing to disagree.
It got flagged and several downvotes. Likely from saying that css is terrible. But I mean that's the essence of the parents actual argument is it not? He's essentially saying css is just not well made or poorly designed. I'm just more on the nose about what he's actually saying.
Either way as you pointed out css being logical is from a very technical perspective correct.
>FWIW, I'm amused because I recognize your behavior as that of someone quite young. I acted similar ways 20 years ago and now I think it's just kind of funny to see in other people.
If you are actually amused then you're a bully. This statement here shows you like to bully people younger then you and laugh in there face. You enjoy angering people and triggering them. But I don't believe this statement. I think you're not being honest here.
I don't think you're actually amused now. But we both know it's clear your intent on overtly displaying that you feel amusement.
>If it wasn't for this arrogance I may have. But now I'm going to reply to every reply you make just to see how long you stick with it. I'm as curious as I am fascinated.
Arrogance? You left out the part where I thanked you for leaving. Now you want to stay and ignite the conflict even further? Does conflict "fascinate" you? I don't think it does. I think you're only pretending.
I think it's the dominance game at play. You want to play it till you win. The problem is, I'm not playing the game. You're just playing it with yourself.
>There is a key sentence in the reply to the other user that I put effort into (since they were friendly and humble unlike yourself) that addresses that nuance, and I encourage you to re-read it with an open mind and without hate/spite in your heart.
I don't hate you. But I do think your a malicious person. I think you're not moral nor a person I would trust ever with anything. But I don't hate you.
Im not sure what your implying here as the key sentence. Why don't you stop being vague ish and just spell it out so we can explicitly point by point examine every facet of our arguments.
>Looking forward to your next reply. Cheers.
Yeah. I'm not. But I will respond. Would appreciate it also in your reply if you just stick with your point and not have to overtly display how "amused" or how "fascinated" you are at this whole thing. I already know your intent here so doing that is just repetitive on your part, thank you.
You called me adorable, you laugh in my face and make dismissive comments. These words are stated by you to start a fucking war. Any reasonable person can see this.
And your counterpoint isn't even charitable. Just a statement of "you're wrong" without concern to my offered evidence, no counter evidence from your end and specifically twisting and picking out specific quotes and pieces to respond to while ignoring the entire paragraph. Manipulative and Classic malice. There's really no point in saying any of this. You know it, your actions are fully intentional.
You're literally the definition of a malicious person.
> I'll let you have the final word so you can feel like you won and this horrible ordeal you are putting yourself through will be over.
Thanks. But you didn't need to say this right? What's the point? Again, malice is literally the only reason. Either way. Finally you are walking away.
>So what? I said you were perpetuating a myth and you were. It still not 'your' thread, what kind of childish nonsense is that?
Please do not say things like that here. It is "my" thread. I opened the topic for discussion. You are free to comment but taking it over with bullshit like this is rude. It is mine in this sense. Do you note how I didn't insult you here and you used the word childish? You need to walk away again.
>Because I don't care what you think at all. I was talking to someone else and you decided to insert yourself because of this mistaken belief that it was 'your' thread. Most ridiculous thing I've seen in quite some time.
If you don't care what people think. You don't belong here. It's actually against the rules here to be rude and say things without care. You'll actually need to leave this entire forum should you continue.
>This is honestly hilarious. Walk, don't walk, I don't really care. But you have no ownership of the thread or right to tell me to stop replying. Go touch grass.
I know you don't care. I'm telling you now, not appreciated at all to laugh in peoples faces and be rude.
>I made valid criticisms. You made a claim, only lazily supported it with a low quality tabloid article, defended perpetuating a false claim and refused to change your stance after I attempted to educate you. That makes you willfully ignorant, and I have no time for you. I will keep replying to you until this conversation runs its course though due to nothing else than curiosity.
You made a counter claim with zero support. Then you purported to cite sources that offered zero information on pig intelligence vs. dog intelligence. Just a bunch of articles and Wikipedia on dog intelligence and how great it is. Everybody knows Dogs are intelligent.. but more intelligent then pigs? You offered nothing. I never said dogs were stupid, your evidence only serves to disprove a point I never made. A bunch of useless off topic evidence that goes nowhere. The point is this: Pigs are more intelligent then dogs.
Additionally all your sources were just as casual and weak as mine. Random internet articles and wikipedia. None of it strengthened your argument because it was both off topic and the same level of quality as my evidence.
Overall your argument was weak and you not only were rude but you violated your own tenets by offering weak and irrational arguments. You even claimed that "you could" accept the fact that pigs were intelligent.
Hey take a look at this, or don't it doesn't matter at this point:
It's the only scientifically peer reviewed paper offered so far in this thread. The highest offer of available empirical evidence which you repeatedly failed to offer. It didn't need to be offered but since you wanted to go to war on this, I offered it. It describes intelligence tasks where pigs beat dogs. There's more on this topic, it's not well researched but the available evidence points to pigs overall being smarter. You can try to argue against the only scientific article here if you want but there's a salvo of other research studies ready to fire on you once you're done. The popular "myth" perpetuates itself on actual scientific studies which you were unaware about.
>Look. You can admit you were wrong and that you were perpetuating misinformation and just move on, or you can keep needing to have the last word and coming back and trying to defend your behavior be talking about how 'rude' I was, but the more you do the latter, the worse it reflects on you.
I'd rather have the last word. I'm human just like you. I was too lazy to actually dig through the internet to actually find you the raw science behind it. But you pissed me off enough to make me spend the effort.
I'm not even making a pathetic effort to sort of worm my way into being right. It's a given that my point is much more obviously the higher supported theory here. A casual google search confirms it ALONG with the science.
You were being manipulative with your arguments and you know it. Weak sources and a weak thesis as well. You got upvotes only from people who didn't follow a single one of your sources. And you stated you're "I'm open to the possibility that pigs might be smarter than dogs" which is lol. It just shows you couldn't find anything definitive. Such are harsh way to bring the hammer down on me when you're "open" to me being "right".
Do you do this kind of thing in real life? Like when you're not sure about something and someone makes a claim about it, you just attack them out of nowhere and demand solid proof when you're wishy washy about it yourself. Hey it's fine to disagree, maybe next time just say, "I'm not sure there's enough science that confirms that for sure" rather then declaring it a "myth" and then being "open" about it later.
Look man, when I say pigs are smarter then dogs I say it like any human says it. With just a vague knowledge of the science without a hard "absolutely" "100%" pigs are smarter. Any rational human will know that and not rudely just proclaim it to be a myth. The science shows evidence that pigs are smarter. It's not overwhelming evidence but it points to the fact that it is the most likely truth. That level of evidence enough for casual conversation which is what's going on here in this thread which you failed to be socially aware about.
Tell you what. You may be open to me being right, but I'm not open to you being right. I claim there is much more science demonstrating pigs beating dogs on intelligence tasks then there are dogs beating pigs. I'm not wishy washy about shit here.
Now throw in your next wall of text and we can continue on this until you run out of things to say because I'm not just right. I'm obviously right. You're the one trying to scaffold the evidence into a shaky foundation for your claim. Good luck.
Anyway, the main faux paus here isn't "not doing research" or flawed citations or anything like that. You've done plenty of that despite your hard ass claims to the contrary. The main problem here is you're not acting civil. You're acting rude. And you've stated you don't care.
That is Against the rules here and I'm sure if any admin saw you talk this way repeatedly without care you would be banned.
I admit I am defending my last word now. But prior to this I was not defending my last word. I was making a statement. A statement saying I find your attitude offensive and I don't like to converse with you at all and I wanted to set the tone that it must end. That was the point. If it looks bad, so be it, but I did not act with malice which is contrary to what you did here.
Many interviewers are so biased and lack nuance that they literally just go with whether or not the person passed the question.