I didn’t start driving till I had to for work.

Good question. That’s the data they have. My guess is their reporting methodology changed.

Your explanation is that there are fewer teen parents?

Uber and Lyft have only been around since the mid 2010s. So that can’t explain it.

Source https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfm
Tools: requests, beautiful soup and matplotlib

If the DOT site was more standardized I would’ve shown more age groups

TLDR the chief of the UN said AI powered weapons are bad.

I don’t think what he’s saying is wrong, but I don’t think there’s a bright line between weapons powered by computers vs the ones we have now.

Humans are going to create new weapons. We are dumb apes, it’s what we do. The best thing we can do to prevent problems in the future is to make sure aggression is punished. War must be completely untenable. For example, make Russia pay reparations to Ukraine to fix the damage they’ve caused.

Why should we trust a bot to give an accurate summary???

Maybe Doreen can join him in a class action lawsuit

What the hell is this preview image. Looks like a Polaroid of a depressed mannequin.

I have been a good Bing 😊

For the GRE our teacher said one of the easiest ways to get a high score was to have a strong ideology. Just be a Nazi, he said.

I did not end up using that advice but maybe if I did I would’ve done even better.

Yes, and imagine how annoying it would be for people to keep saying “that’s not really blue”.

And I’m saying that intelligence is just a word we use to point to ourselves. It doesn’t have an objective meaning which is why there is no test people can agree on.

I would say something that can do calculations perfectly and faster than any human is pretty smart. If a human could do that we’d call them a genius.

And in your example, continuing the pattern, just because a computer can’t do that it’s not intelligent? That’s an extremely narrow view of intelligence.

Animals evolved to be good at some very specific things to fill an ecological niche. Humans evolved to be good at different things. I mainly see people discounting computer capabilities by measuring them against humans. Things that are easy for us are hard for computers and vice versa. But it’s highly unlikely that computers would be at all similar to people, since we’ve been specializing for millions of years.

GPTZero claims to measure the perplexity of a sample of text. Am I missing something or is that a complete scam? You can’t measure perplexity without access to the model logits, which aren’t available for GPT-3.

You could guess what the logits would be by gathering text samples but there’s no way a pet project could gather enough data to accurately estimate conditional probabilities.

> I’d say that even calling it “AI” is misleading because it’s not intelligent.

I’d say it’s misleading for a different reason. We don’t know what intelligence is. Every time a computer can perform a task, that task is no longer considered a test of “intelligence”. Well, if every task is reducible to something unintelligent then perhaps intelligence was really a mirage in the first place.

Phenomenal calculation. You assume every minute of YouTube contains nonstop speech at the average word rate. Obviously this is false.

Second, in comparing quantity of speech you say nothing about quality. Libraries don’t contain every single book in existence. Most books are trash. YouTube does contain tons of trash.

You mean audio books?

Y axis isn’t even labeled and this is called beautiful data

It’s even funnier the article lists “calculations” but even that isn’t clear how books on YouTube is calculated

If it’s posted to YouTube which one do you think it is

If life is so great there they should allow journalists in to check it out for themselves.