Does it really? sad. I was reading the “invite” process and can’t say I fully understand it.
Papers can always be uploaded to https://libgen.is/scimag/librarian/ Many thanks to all the anonymous users who do.
Does it really? sad. I was reading the “invite” process and can’t say I fully understand it.
Papers can always be uploaded to https://libgen.is/scimag/librarian/ Many thanks to all the anonymous users who do.
United States of chinA
“Ethical and legal objections”. The point in this case is that what’s legal is unethical, and what’s ethical is illegal. Analogous to other situations through history and countries, for example in the USA when it was illegal for black people to sit in certain parts of a bus, or in Germany when marriage with Jewish people was illegal.
As human beings, it’s always important to make the ethical choice.
“Science of the Total Environment” journal? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Too silly even for a 3rd-rate sci-fi film…
these autonomous agents represent the next step in the evolution of large language models (LLMs), seamlessly integrating into business processes to handle functions such as responding to customer inquiries, identifying sales leads, and managing inventory.
I really want to see what happens. It seems to me these “agents” are still useless in handling tasks like customer inquiries. Hopefully customers will get tired and switch to companies that employ competent humans instead…
😂
The current security philosophy almost seems to be: “In order to make it secure, make it difficult to use”. This is why I propose to go a step further: “In order to make it secure, just don’t make it”. The safest account is the one that doesn’t exist or that can’t be accessed by anyone, including its owner.
We aren’t supposed to accept that. We can simply not use their software. And as users that’s the only power we have on devs. But it’s a power that only works on devs who are interested in having many users.
Nobel prize in computer science. Looks like the Nobel Prize committee has forgotten what Physics is.
Fully agree.
It’s worth posting the blog post you linked.
Personally I disagree on value of sex/nude scenes – but it’s a subjective matter of course. Your final argument is absolutely fair and logical, and very general too. Extremely well put – I subscribe 110% to it!
It seems to me these scenes are introduced in films to sexualize them. Most often than not they don’t add anything to the story. But blood & sex get more viewers. So I find the whole thing hypocritical.
Brings me to mind an episode of the hilarious series “Coupling”, where Jeff says that the actress in the film “The Piano” (?) was naked in the whole film. His friends say she wasn’t, it was only a scene in the film. And Jeff replies “it depends on how you watch it” 🤣
Which can be further summarized: academics (🙋🏻) are basically a bunch of idiotic sheep, despite being in academia.
See also https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/16/the-public-sphere/#not-the-elsevier
Yeah to me too. I’m not clicking on that “Download client” link for sure.
As most who have already commented here, I’m somewhat unimpressed (and would expect more analytical subtlety from a scientist). Wittgenstein already fully dissected the notion of “free will”, showing its semantic variety of meanings and how at some depth it becomes vague and unclear. And Nietzsche discussed why “punishment” is necessary and makes sense even in a completely deterministic world… Sad that such insights are forgotten by many scientists. Often unclear if some scientists want to deepen our understanding of things, or just want sensationalism. Maybe a bit of both…
“Bayesian analysis”? What the heck has this got to do with Bayesian analysis? Does this guy have an intelligence, artificial or otherwise?
It’s reached 333 protesters! that’s 1/3 of the way to 1000, it’d be cool if it kept on increasing :)
I don’t understand why they keep saying “the Trump admin is doing this”, “the Trump admin is doing that”, and so on. It isn’t the Trump admin: it’s the majority of USA citizens that’s doing this and that. They voted it. They’re the first responsible and guilty. Each and every single person in that majority.