It's low because they were tested on puzzle cases that are deliberately selected to be hard.

It's like saying most people are ok at commonplace arithmetic in everyday life. So how come their accuracy rate is only 20% in solving puzzles in The Scientific American Book of Mathematical Puzzles?

Note that no actual patients were diagnosed, so it's impossible to say that the AI is better than actual doctors in diagnosing real live human beings.

Case studies are cases that are deliberately selected to be not like what doctors see every day (because why would doctors want to read about what they see every day?). But actual doctors have to diagnose what they see every day. If the AI is trained on case studies where the patient has an incredibly rare disease that hits one person in twenty million, the AI will be biased to find outré and unusual diseases, and miss "this patient has the flu."

I'm pointing out the consequences of what you said using the words that you said. You are trying to avoid the implications of what you said, because your ideology tells you that entitled rich people who inherited their millions are, in fact, entitled to their wealth and are not "lazy pieces of shit who contribute nothing who feel entitled to what everyone else has, no matter how hard they worked for it, and all the while bitching and moaning about how everything is unfair and that nobody should have to work to have luxuries in life" (your words).

"Lazy pieces of shit" was your words, not mine, but if there are actuallyt lazy pieces of shit soaking up resources that they never earned, yes, that phrase could absolutely refers to trust fund babies.

Except your ideology doesn't allow you to notice that they don't work for what they have.

Yeah, I once looked into them and got sticker shock :P That said, the prices are coming down. The research seems to continue to show that they're safe for humans (although from the data I've seen I doubt they're safe for houseplants; their cuticle is much thinner than our skin). But for us... it can't penetrate dead skin, and while the outer layers of our eyes are alive, the cells there are constantly being shed and replaced.

Your comment was about entitled people who do no work to have luxuries in life.

That refers to trust fund babies.

Your particular trust-fund baby is almost certainly trivial compared to multi-millionaire trust fund babies burning through resources that they did nothing to earn, though, so I am not particularly attacking you.

It makes sense. Clavascidium laciniatum forms a biological soil crust in harsh areas like Joshua Tree. And it's incredibly slow growing. So the rate at which it accumulates UV damage versus the rate at which it can repair itself is super-high. Hence it's been under intense selective pressure to develop good resistance to the ionizing radiation damage caused by UV.

When the British were regularly poaching our waters, we pushed them back incrementally in a series of three "Cod Wars". We didn't just sit there and allow it to happen.

More specifically, you are giving your child resources which he has not earned by contributing to society. Which is precisely what you complained about, people taking resources without contributing.

However, in general I doubt that slashdot commenters are a significant contribution to the problem. It is the multi-millionaire trust-fund babies that contribute nothing and feel entitled to luxury.

"There are approximately a million known asteroids in our cosmic neighborhood; over the next few years, Rubin could very well hike that figure up to five million.
"This is five times more than all the astronomers in the world discovered during the last 200 years"

Wait, did Zeljko Ivezic just tell us that five million is five times more than one million?

How dumb does he think the average person is?

--
(apologies for leaving out the diacritical marks in the name. Slashdot has problems with non-English alphabets, and would have written it as eljko Ivezi.)

obligatory cartoon: https://i0.wp.com/arnoldzwicky...

By a specialized chess program that did nothing except chess. Not by a general AI.

Your post is agreeing with the post you were apparently objecting to.

Indeed. We call these "trust-fund babies", the children of privilege.

It won't be long for lawyers to get in on the game - that because you were driving a vehicle with a tall hood, you knew it was going to cause more damage and thus you should pay more damages to the person you hit.

Get that going a few times and the insurance industry will adjust rates appropriately so people who drive big vehicles now have to pay for significantly more liability insurance because their vehicles are more likely to cause more damage to people.

Shouldn't take more than a few years for it to be sorted out - a few legal cases by ambulance chasers, and a few changes to insurance policies and now there's a market push for smaller vehicles again.

And most of the push to larger vehicles isn't CAFE or whatever. It's car companies - big vehicles are simply more profitable. They could sell you an econobox for $15,000, but they'd really rather you buy the F950 for $150,000 instead. That monster truck probably makes about 4 econoboxes worth of profit. I did NOT say make 4 times as much profit as the econobox. I said 4 econoboxes worth of profit. Probably 20 times the profit of the econobox.

TACO Tuesday is Canada Day this year, actually.

You also often do it as you're older and wiser and know that sometimes, the problem will solve itself as well.

A tough problem at work? Putting it aside and suddenly the next day it's no longer a problem because it's been made moot.

It helps avoid a lot of wasted effort. Experience will help tell you which problems you need to tackle immediately, which ones you need to put aside for the "aha" moment, and which ones you need to put aside because it'll disappear in a week's time.