I’m not gonna go looking for scans or anything, but KnowYourMeme lists the popularity of this one as starting between 2013 and 2015, and I definitely remember seeing this phrase in a textbook around 2010 or 2011. So honestly, I might blame Pearson or McGraw Hill.
You can’t explain a river? It goes down hill.
I understand that complicated things frieghten you, Tja, but I don’t understand what any of this has to do with being unsatisfied when an insurance company denies your claim and all they have to say is “the big robot said no… uh… leave now?”
A single drop of water contains billions of molecules, and yet, we can explain a river. Maybe you should try applying yourself. The field of hydrology awaits you.
Hey look, this took me like 5 minutes to find.
Censius guide to AI interpretability tools
Here’s a good thing to wonder: if you don’t know how you’re black box model works, how do you know it isn’t racist?
Here’s what looks like a university paper on interpretability tools:
As a practical example, new regulations by the European Union proposed that individuals affected by algorithmic decisions have a right to an explanation. To allow this, algorithmic decisions must be explainable, contestable, and modifiable in the case that they are incorrect.
Oh yeah. I forgot about that. I hope your model is understandable enough that it doesn’t get you in trouble with the EU.
Oh look, here you can actually see one particular interpretability tool being used to interpret one particular model. Funny that, people actually caring what their models are using to make decisions.
Look, maybe you were having a bad day, or maybe slapping people is literally your favorite thing to do, who am I to take away mankind’s finer pleasures, but this attitude of yours is profoundly stupid. It’s weak. You don’t want to know? It doesn’t make you curious? Why are you comfortable not knowing things? That’s not how science is propelled forward.
They mean that the code is being written like it were python. You can’t get rid of the curly braces, but you can shove them all under your bed where mom can’t see.
During the third or fourth time I was mad that 3D hadn’t taken off like technicolor, I though “fine! I’ll just look at trees and hallways in real life then!” And yeah, it kinda works.
There’s a lot of beauty in the world if you just, you know, look at it.
Mm, yeah, that’s possible, too. I think I just considered that to be a turn a phrase.
This is almost off-topic, but I’ve always found it kind of funny that people ask questions like these in AITA when they could get an answer if they just thought about it for 5 minutes. Like, “Wow, my wife really hates this. And, it either was or was not my fault, so… hm.”
It would be, but he did say he thought it was a harmless secret. That could be read as though he didn’t know it would bother her.
Like, my name allegedly means things, but unless my mom really hates the Irish, I don’t think many of them would set her off.
Me too, haha. This is what happens when you treat arguments like chess pieces and not, you know, reason. I don’t believe this guy has any idea what he just said. I also don’t think he cares.
I’d have to actually search his name then, right?
I don’t know who this person is.
True, but I often feel like people use Poe’s law as an excuse not to engage mentally. It’s really uncharitable, actually.
Like, I can hold the view “is sincere” and “is sarcastic” in my mind simultaneously until something confirms or denies one.
And it’s not like it matters that much. If he’s sincere, I’ll say "wow, that’s crazy, " and if he’s not, I’ll say “wow, that would be crazy.”
[e] Just to clarify, I see now he’s a Fox news contrib. So, he’s paid to be nuts.
Oh, it’s no problem :p
I don’t think I’ve seen Etymonline before, so I should thank you for introducing me to it. I do really like etymology, actually.
Whoa, whoa, I’m not making this out to be like an imperialism thing. I’m not interested in what people ought to do.
The link I gave, a comment in there gives examples of papers where the term is being used to mean different things. So, this ambiguity is either something you just have to contend with (people using the term wrong), or you just don’t read from those people. It’s fine. Nobody is coming for you, I promise.
If I were in your class and you said “the whole numbers” but meant the negatives too, that’d probably give me pause (dumb American), but I have such herculean powers of intuition that I probably wouldn’t even ask you a question about it.
An English dictionary is not really going to tell you what mathematicians are doing. Like, its goal is to describe what the word “integer” means (in various contexts), it won’t tell you what the “integer series” is.
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/138633/what-are-the-whole-numbers
The gist I see is that it’s kind of ambiguous whether the whole number series includes negatives or not, and in higher math you won’t see the term without a strict definition. It’s much more likely you’d see “non-negative integers” or the like.
That might be integers, but I have no idea.
To be fair, I think that’s what the part after the colon was for.
Well, a lot of these points are really more about readability than they are about reducing the abstraction. Smaller, labeled chunks of information are easier to process than larger ones with no anatomy.
But even so, abstractions, especially in programming, are often made because a pattern was noticed between concrete examples. Teaching the abstraction first or even alone does inherently skip a lot of context for why it was made in the first place. Sometimes, you need to know what problem a function is solving before you can truly know the function.
Oh, I know what you mean. I’m sick to death of this debate, haha.
I do think the things people say are funny, though.
Why do people “feel” 80, though
Oh, thank you. I forgot. Sometimes I can’t remember.