While the authors may be Indian and Chinese, they are most definitely studying at Western Universities or at least collaborating with western universities in the majority of cases. Not sure what you’re on about.
I don’t think he’s lying but I also don’t think one could say that it is proven he hasn’t modified the system for his benefit just based on the public information on views/impressions/etc.
I imagine it wouldn’t be hard to fake these public facing numbers if a system was modified to boost his tweets.
While I get being skeptical these legacy news organizations, I also don’t see how we could trust Twitter directly in this situation especially given what we’ve already seen what happened under previous leadership there.
Edit: sorry if any of this came off as combative, I’m just irritated with people throwing out how things have been “proved” with equally subjective/potentially unreliable data.
Associated, yes, but the causation is not clear: it could be the case that early drinking predisposes adolescents to alcoholism, or that adolescents who would be predisposed to alcoholism as adults are reflected in early drinking statistics.
These surveys are also done on American adolescents, who are more likely to obtain and consume alcohol illicitly than their European counterparts. It would be interesting to see comparative statistics on the two.
Finally: this bulletin mixes up different demographics: you have (1) COAs who are more likely to become alcoholics themselves, (2) adolescents who engage in binge drinking, which is generally correlated with alcoholism in adulthood, and (3) an unmeasured population of drinking-but-not-binging adolescents.
Fundamentally the current accommodation of copyright has two main justifications:
1) Protect economic activity
2) Moral right to identify original author of a work
The point of ease of replication speaks to (1) fundamentally breaking. A human can only produce so much output compared to an AI system.
(2) is a much thornier subject, and not one I really feel qualified to speak on.
This is a better argument than your smiley implies. Given a work, we can't (or soon won't be able to) tell whether its creator was a human or an AI. So the only important thing that matters is whether the final work infringes copyright or not. Unless people are seriously arguing that nobody should be able to use AI to produce images even for their own private use.
The third vehicle (pickup truck) decided to go around instead of stopping, probably because of the vehicle behind that was driving too close. That caused a larger pileup than it would have been if the fourth car maintained a safe distance and speed.
This is partially the fault of Tesla, but it could have just been any other car having issues such as running out of gas, or an engine failure, or a medical condition with the driver… and the result would have been the same. That being said, there’s obviously no reason for FSD to stop the car like that - Tesla needs to figure out these random stops in the middle of a freeway
Aside from being "cheap romance", these actually deal with complex problem-solving.
Some time in the future, once we've managed to abstract away the technical aspects of mathematical modeling and AI, we'll be mining these books for scenarios on how to deal with human relationships.