This paper has been online at least since 2018.
It has since been published: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v98/stelmakh19a.html
821 karma · joined October 1, 2012
andrew [at] mrdrozdov.com
It has since been published: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v98/stelmakh19a.html
Maybe use the categories mentioned in the twitter thread such as health, travel, recipes, product reviews, etc.
The claim is that Google search is producing worse results than in the past. The analysis is mostly anecdotal, and similar claims have been made before in a more concrete way. A prime example is "time to cook onions" giving incorrect results, covered in this slate article: https://slate.com/human-interest/2012/05/how-to-cook-onions-...
What we need is to see is specific queries, the results returned, why they're wrong, and what they should be instead.
Minor typo in this article...
ARTICLE: Among their findings – based on core data from the Facebook-led community project Papers With Code (PWC) – the authors contend that ‘widely-used datasets are introduced by only a handful of elite institutions’, and that this ‘consolidation’ has increased to 80% in recent years.
...but right after, they quote the paper and clearly it is 50% not 80%. See the quote from the paper:
PAPER: ‘[We] find that there is increasing inequality in dataset usage globally, and that more than 50% of all dataset usages in our sample of 43,140 corresponded to datasets introduced by twelve elite, primarily Western, institutions.’
...and the article is leaving out this relevant quote from the paper:
PAPER: Moreover, this concentration on elite institutions as measured through Gini has increased to over 0.80 in recent years (Figure 3 right red). This trend is also observed in Gini concentration on datasets in PWC more generally (Figure 3 right black).
...and in general the article is right that inequality is increasing over time, but Gini is a specific metric to measure inequality, and 0.80 is not the same as 80% inequality.
Also, you're assuming whoever stole these cards are rational beings and not characters out of Ocean's Eleven.
Greenland
The Little Things
The Conjuring
Killerman
Ghost in the Shell (live action)
Redline
SputnikEDIT: I have to add that I reference movies a lot in conversation. Often, I’ll watch a movie then immediately call a family or friend to discuss some finer point. This happens frequently, sometimes for a fairly mundane movie detail.
EDIT2: Now I really want to make a list of movies just from this year, since my number has definitely gone up since COVID. I think I’d easily break 100 in 2021 alone.
EDIT3: Here’s a list from my Netflix history since June 1. Mix of TV and movies. I added Justice League Extended Edition and Replica even though they’re HBO because I watched them recently (within the last week). This isn’t really a representative list of my watching, plus I tend to watch a bunch of similar movies/shows, then switch to a new cluster. This group is particularly action heavy because I was playing a lot in the background recently while doing other work. All of these were fun! Even if I don’t think they are the best ever :))
Movies 2021 June-July
Zack Snyder’s Justice League
Replica
The Take
Darc
American Assassin
S.W.A.T.
Sniper Legacy
The Interpreter
Redemption
Extraction
Spenser Confidential
TV
Biohackers
Shooter
Quantico
Sweet Tooth
Record of Ragnorak
Bodyguard
HollywoodSure, if I use some code as inspiration for solving a problem at work, that seems fine.
But if I copy verbatim some licensed code then put it in my commercial product, that's the issue.
It's a lot easier to imagine for other applications like generating music. If I trained a music model on publicly available Youtube music videos, then my model generates music identical to Interstellar Love by The Avalanches and I use the "generated" music in my product, that's clearly a use that is against the intent of the law.
There are other facts about ByteDance such as having nearly 100k employees and a moderately size AI research lab that makes this news less surprising.
To convince them to participate in containment, their more responsible friends, family, and colleagues need to reach out, and more importantly we need to have consistent messaging from the government.
Yes, it’s important to ask and with a high level of seriousness. If the internet has taught me anything, it’s that people need to read something 8 or more times before fully internalizing it.
This is very different from guidelines in general. Encouraging people to avoid large crowds, wash their hands and wipe surfaces, and possibly self-quarantine could have made a huge impact earlier on.
Instead, people kept going to bars, concerts, and traveling. A lot could have been done, and testing is only part of the story.
Btw, their top-3 repos respectively have 12k, 573, 432 stars. I'm not sure little is the apt description.
In 2019, the top 5 institutions were:
1. Google (USA) — 167.3
2. Stanford University (USA) — 82.3
3. MIT (USA) — 69.8
4. Carnegie Mellon University (USA) — 67.7
5. UC Berkeley (USA) — 54.0For instance, if a nourishing lake had suddenly dried up, I'd use a different word. Perhaps devastating.
I'm not sure that impressive is the right term here...