hoffmanmclaunsky

hoffmanmclaunsky t1_ja9odz2 wrote

driving up Haleakala is kind of a surreal experience. It just keeps going up. You start at warm balmy tropical beaches, two hours and 10,000 feet later you get out in a cold, desolate desert. And you can still see those warm balmy beaches in the distance. It's wild.

93

hoffmanmclaunsky t1_j8j1h0t wrote

I'm only very casually knowledgeable in QM, but my understanding is that photons are waves that propagate through the electromagnetic field. They are not the medium, the medium is the field.

As for measuring their wavelength, the most classic example is using a double slit to create a wave interference pattern, then measuring that. Lasers make this easiest and most accurate but it's possible to get an idea of the scale of these wavelengths even using white light.

Lastly, wave particle duality and the uncertainty principle don't really work with most "mechanical" interpretations, at least in a general sense. They're helpful if you're thinking about specific aspects of photons and other particles, but the reality is that quantum behavior just has different rules and trying to understand through the lens of more intuitive mechanics just doesn't work all that well a lot of the time.

1

hoffmanmclaunsky t1_j46zaf3 wrote

Is this something you've studied at a university? I only took a few AI/ML classes at uni so I'm not going to pretend to be an expert.

In any case "field of study that deals with replicating intelligence" isn't exactly a rigorous definition. Really that description speaks to how broad and nebulous it is.

1

hoffmanmclaunsky t1_j46ilb6 wrote

Generally speaking it is more a concept. “Machine Learning” is the more rigorously defined subject. Machine learning specifically means iteratively modifying a model using training data, then applying that model to real world data. AI is a bit more of a nebulous concept, but generally speaking it's just using some search algorithm with heuristics to make the search more "intelligent".

−1

hoffmanmclaunsky t1_j3r5knu wrote

Those teams aren't symmetrical though. The Chiefs have the best offense and a slightly above average defense. The Pats have a good defense and a well below average offense. At a glance on this chart maybe they seem similar, but it's misleading.

Just look at their season point differential. The Pats scored 17 more points than they allowed for the whole season. The Chiefs scored 127. Regardless of their offensive/defensive ranks, it's very clear from those numbers that the Pats are a middling team and the Chiefs are great team.

2