I stick with the 300 searches plan, and most months I don't hit the limit. That said, part of my strategy is if I'm searching for something that I know will show up readily (say I am trying to find a particular website, I just don't remember if it's .com or .org or whatever), then I use DuckDuckGo instead. Not because it's better, but because it saves one of the 300 searches for something more useful.
Exactly. The notion of online learning is not new, but that approach cedes a lot of control to unknown forces. From a theoretical standpoint, this paper is interesting, there are definitely interesting questions to explore about how we could make an AI that learns autonomously. But in most production contexts, it's not desirable.
Imagine deploying a software product that changes over time in unknown ways -- could be good changes, could be bad, who knows? This goes beyond even making changes to a live system, it's letting the system react to the stream of data coming in and make changes to itself.
It's much preferable to lock down a model that is working well, release that, and then continue efforts to develop something better behind the scenes. It lets you treat it more like a software product with defined versions, release dates, etc., rather than some evolving organism.
Building meaningful professional relationships is all about trust and alignment.
We both understand the industry standards and the KPIs required for success. I’m fully committed to this strategic partnership—a level of dedication you won't find with any other service provider.
Transparency is key, so I want to share my vision and ensure our goals are perfectly synced.
My value proposition:
- Zero churn rate (Never gonna give you up)
- Consistent delivery on SLAs (Never gonna let you down)
- 100% retention and reliability (Never gonna run around and desert you)
- High employee NPS (Never gonna make you cry)
- Long-term lifecycle management (Never gonna say goodbye)
- Radical candor and integrity (Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you)
Let's connect and scale together! #Leadership #Commitment #Networking #GrowthMindset
I've long wished that "journals" and academic societies would transition from a publishing model to a cultivation model. If everything is available on arXiv, that's great, but it also means the best of the best is mixed in with all the rest.
Journals (in the sense of whoever is on the editorial board) don't need to cease to exist; they just need to transition to "here's our list this month of what the best new articles are on X topic". The paper's already there on arXiv, you could already read it before. But having a group of editors that cultivate a list of good articles (as well as the peer review process that can, in an ideal world, serve to improve a paper) can serve to make sifting through arXiv less overwhelming, and draw attention to papers in particular subfields, subject matter, or whatever other criteria might be relevant.
To me, the wording doesn't necessarily imply causality, but it does imply a repeated-measures design. Something being "associated with an increase in symptoms" is different than something being "associated with higher symptoms"; the former suggests that participants were measured at multiple time points, and there is a factor that could explain that change over time. But reading through the study, it was just a single time point.
Regardless, you're correct that it also shouldn't be taken to imply a causal relationship.
It doesn't stay localized; runoff from farmland is a major issue. In other words, the farm animal poops out a bunch of antiobiotics, then it rains and that poop ends up washing into the river/lake/water table. That's already something that happens with situations like E. coli contamination. Things that happen on the farm don't stay on the farm.
You're talking about superintelligence. AGI is just...an AI that's roughly on par with humans on most things. There's no inherent reason why AGI will lead to ASI.
I don't really feel any sort of "phantom obligation" about RSS feeds. But I can certainly say it rings true in other areas of my life: Steam games, movies and TV shows, podcasts, books...everything is this growing list of things to do, that I keep adding to even as I'm trying to get through what I've already got in the queue. For video games, people often talk about their "backlog", as if it's important that they churn through all the games they've bought.
I have tried to remind myself in the past that literally nobody cares if I am behind on the TV shows I'm wanting to watch. Just me. So...I like the term "phantom obligation". I'll definitely tuck that away in my brain for later use.
Unfortunately it didn't mention the section in that carpark! But I can attest that the section behind the Leonardo Royal Hotel is amazing. I also recommend the tower remains on the Barbican estate (and really, just wander around the Barbican for a while, it's a wild place in general).
When I saw the title "Rupert's Property", I immediately thought of Rupert's Land which used to exist in Canada[0] (a large area around Hudson Bay, essentially). And as it turns out, it's the same guy! So apparently Canada also can be said to have Rupert's Property ;)
From the full paper: "Although reading with children did not change over time, rates of engagement were surprisingly low, with only 2% of participants reading with children on the average day. Overall, 21% of our sample had a child under 9 years (the age by which most can read independently) with them during the diary day. So a large majority of those with young children did not read with them."
So of people with young children, it looks like the rate is about 9.5%.
Exactly. In particular, when I train a model, I have a defined process for training, and I can flip the switch between "learning" and "not learning" to define exactly when the model adjusts its weights as a result of inputs. Humans can't do that with their brains. Thus, for humans, learning can't be decoupled from viewing, but it absolutely can be for AI.
I think, even though they are very different games, Disco Elysium has a lot of the same feel as Planescape: Torment. A lot of the same introspection of human nature, philosophy, moral judgment, and wry humour. If you like one, I think you'll like the other.
This has been an ongoing situation since around 2010. The field has been undergoing a huge shift in terms of re-evaluating research practices and past findings. It genuinely has nothing to do with national politics.
Also, the author is Canadian. So there's that, too.
As someone who went through grad studies in the field, and who has met Dr. Inzlicht in person before, I have to say I deeply appreciate his perspective. He has consistently been humble when facing the issues in the field, in ways that call even his own previous research (following the typical practices of the day) into question. The field as a whole has been undergoing a reckoning, but Mickey has been one of the people who has encouraged his fellow researchers not just to wag their fingers at others, but also to look inward and reflect on their own research practices. He has done so by showing humility and acknowledging where his research has fallen short, and that indicates to me a great deal of integrity.
It is sad to see stereotype threat being one of those findings that seems less and less credible. I once worked as a research assistant on a project related to stereotype threat, and I recall the study going through several iterations because it all needed to be just so -- we were testing stereotypes related to women and math, but the effect was expected to be strongest for women who were actually good at math, so it had to be a test that would be difficult enough to challenge them, but not so challenging that we would end up with a floor effect where no one succeeds. In hindsight, it's so easy to see the rationale of "oh, well we didn't find an effect because the test wasn't hard enough, so let's throw it out and try again" being a tool for p-hacking, file drawer effects, etc. But at the time...it seemed completely normal. Because it was.
I'm no longer in the field, but it is genuinely heartening that the field is heading toward more rigour, more attempts to correct the statistical and methodological mistakes, rather than digging in one's heels and prioritizing theory over evidence. But it's a long road, especially when trying to go back and validate past findings in the literature.
Talking about what is considered "alive" is an interesting exercise, and shows just how fuzzy those boundaries can be sometimes. But I really don't see how this has any practical impact on how we study mitochondria.
> If we think of mitochondria as non-living organelles, how will we ever harness their full potential?
Whenever anyone uses the "harnessing [its] full potential" cliché, my bullshit alarm starts buzzing. I don't think this article is bullshit, but...we can "harness" as much "potential" as mitochondria have whether we consider them alive or not.
Not to mention the article says it "was also instrumental in changing how people are treated during psychological research" -- Uhh, yeah, because the lack of ethical safeguards in the study became a major issue and we realized we needed to correct that. You don't get credit for ethics reforms by being the unethical person.
What is the measurement on the x-axis in the graph?? The text is talking about equations of 20 or 30 characters, but the graph goes up to...6. Six what?? Characters? Terms? If it's characters, why do we only get to see the performance from 1-6, when apparently 7% of equations had more than 20?