![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
Somehow, we manage to accept organ transplants despite it hurting one healthy person a little to help an unhealthy person a lot. What’s stopping us from treating birth control the same way?
Somehow, we manage to accept organ transplants despite it hurting one healthy person a little to help an unhealthy person a lot. What’s stopping us from treating birth control the same way?
It is made by scientists. And we don’t know how to make the model determine whether or not it knows something. So far, we only have tools that tell us that something probably wasn’t in the training set (e.g. using variance across models in a mixture of experts setup), but that doesn’t tell us anything about how correct it is.
I’ve heard Elon Musk (or was it Karpathy?) talking about how camera should be sufficient for all scenarios because humans can do it on vision alone, but that’s poor reasoning IMO. Cars are not humans, so there’s no reason to confine them to the same limitations. If we want them to be safer and more capable than human drivers, one way to do that is by providing them with more information.
Oh, I see. You’re clarifying why jonne thought this was the case, not arguing for why they’re correct.
The article is about Google. Why does it matter that it’s missing from the Alphabet handbook?
Have you found any of the former?
I don’t see how it would be possible to completely replace programmers. The reason we have programming languages instead of using natural language is that the latter has ambiguities. If you start having to describe your software’s behaviour in natural language, then one of three things can happen:
Anyone know if there are good backup options for sftp?
I’d be surprised if being born with a specific face configuration isn’t protected in the same way that race and gender are.