ktallett

Is there a device that has been built and examples of it working?

But do you ever get good enough to make a contribution that's worthwhile? And also is your knowledge flawed because the knowledge of the data used to train the model is flawed?

Whilst I do see your point and I do see the value for prototyping, I don't quite agree that you can learn very much from it. Not more than the many basic intro to..... Articles can teach.

Do you really believe the outlay in terms of computer power is worth it to change the tone of an email? If it never gets better, this is a vast waste of an enormous amount of resources.

This is a business practice issue and staff issue, not a meeting minutes issue. I have meetings daily, and have never had this issue. You make it clear what is decided during the meeting, give anyone a chance to query or question, then no one can argue.

They can be useful, however for admin tasks, there are plenty of valid alternatives that really take no longer time wise so why bother using all that computing power.

They don't just work though, they are not fool proof and definitely require double checking.

Ok take Transcription, they were trying to use free as in cost tools instead of using software that works efficiently that has been effective for decades now.

A lot of these issues you have had are simply user error or not using the right tool for the job.

Do they only have reduced barriers of entry if you aren't fussed about the accuracy of the output? If you care that everything works correctly and is factually correct, do you not need the same competency as just doing the task by hand.

There are those who have realised they can make a lot of cash from it and also get funding by using the term AI. But at the end of the day what software doesn't have some machine learning built in. It's nothing new, nor is the current implementations particularly extraordinary or accurate.

HPCs are usually in Collab with universities for specific science research. Using up their resources is hopping on the bandwagon to damage another industry.an industry (AI) which is neither new nor anywhere close to being anything more than an personal assistant at the moment. Not even a great one at that.

The hype surrounding them is not as a pa and tbh a lot of these use cases already have existing methods that work just fine. There are ways to find key information in files already, and speedy meeting minutes is really just a template away.

It is fully open source and can be rebuilt entirely yourself using the given design files. You are comparing two vastly different items.

I'm not talking about consumer products, I'm talking about academic research. Most research has no patent attached nor any contents that is patent worthy. Most methods in most papers are based on the very basic building blocks coming from ones fine motor skills.

The fact these methods are omitted has numerous problems. One key issue this provides is reproducibility. All science has to be reproducible and a building block for future science. Omitting key details makes this unfit for purpose.

Secondly, it also means research can not be checked for accuracy and truth, which I do sometimes wonder if thats on purpose. Perhaps they are only presenting the most successful attempt, but not the average situation.

Lastly, this fully goes against the spirit of academic research. I want anyone out there to develop either a brand new usage for my work or adapt and improve my work, either building on it, or finding a new way of doing it that's easier, or more repeatable/reliable. It saves me having to do it, and as I am still working in that field, I will benefit from it.

Transparency is the case, up to a point in research. Many engineering papers I find, have the told you the building blocks of what is required, but they try to avoid stating the secret sauce that binds them together.

That still wouldn't allow for edge/unusual cases and situations which I would say having experienced group therapy for many years, most significant therapy users have quite a few of.

It isn't an either or scenario, NSO can be in the wrong and rightfully fined and weapons can also be sold by governments to the wrong parties. The latter should be regulated as well, not the former being let off as well. Demand shouldn't always equal supply.

Beyond the Wall was a really interesting listen about the DDR.

I have not considered it enough to form a view yet but I expect he would be referring to the precision required for mini golf.

One risk of open source development and development in public is that anyone can take part, hence appropriate management of merge is key. Therefore automated services without appropriate strategies to mitigate this are probably not useful. I am curious did these contributors actually make any malicious changes?

I would agree but I doubt it will become more of a thing, too many seem to not be willing to accept failure or show vunerability. This will always be rare in the start up market as long as bravado and fake it till you make it is still a thing, which it is.

There is far too much snobbery at times around packing a program for ready to go. Whilst of course the work increases for the developer, I do think it makes it overall more usable and easy to access for those who perhaps are not so competent or confident at building packages, especially when using non standard required packages.

What is traumatizing to one child can be thought provoking to another. Not every one experiences any form of entertainment in the same way.

In a development job, the only reason to have nothing on your CV is a lack of effort. You can most certainly create projects that are CV worthy, that you will also benefit from financially.

Whilst I respect your experience, is there a chance you may not have been able to find a different opportunity in that time you had been working for free?

This was how I relearned to program in C++ and ported a few apps to the OS. It was a great experience and the OS has come on leaps and bounds. If anything for many it could be a daily driver nowadays.

Rightfully they should answer the case at hand in the proper manner, the fact it may harm their reputation is due to their own actions. There is clearly a case to answer as to in the court, and the families of those lost deserve real answers and the truth, which they were not going to get hidden behind a plea deal. It was rather disgusting that the plea deal was ever on the table.

I greatly question what has gone so wrong at Boeing in recent years across so many areas.

Is he? I don't think I believe a single word coming from this man's mouth. Without proof of anything he says, it's just pointless noise. I feel how can I listen to the words of a man who thinks his diet will help him live beyond what humans can live. He could be on a big mac a day for all I know. What he seems to be selling is his product and brand, and I don't think that he would ever say the truth if it took away from that.

I question the desire of those working at Microsoft on these projects. Why are you releasing your work in dribs and drabs? Why are you not following scientific process? Each time something is released, the announcements are lacking in fundamental details. I think Theranos has meant the fake it till you make it method just doesn't work anymore. Come to me when you have done what you say you have done, and have the proof to back it up. Until that time, it is at best a goal.

Is this amazing, or just finally proof of something most people already knew, which was he has no ability to change his life expectancy bar being generally fit and healthy.

I slightly question anyone who ever believed him when he said taking some daily supplements was really going to help him live for any extended period of time beyond normal life expectancy. His claims were always ludicrous and never based off fact. He was always going to age similarly to everyone else in the world.