551–560 of 639 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
less than lay person, but in your example > "no evidence of cancer" and "evidence of no cancer" are very different things. Why is it not as simple "no belongs to the word it precedes" ? like unary operator, ! (not), in typical computer languages.
- evidence of no liver cancer - no textbook evidence of cancer Statements have structure, parsing them with simple rules like this is akin to parsing C++ with regular expressions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google is in the business of producing quick results to sell ads while keeping the cost low. If anyone does better, they will likely do it using a costlier algorithm, and if there is more margin in reselling tangible products than ads then Amazon is incentivized to use costlier algorithms that are more accurate. But I think the margin in both cases does not justify the use of algorithms that may be more accurate in s…
animalCrax0rx is in the business of producing quick pithy posts to earn more karma while keeping understanding low and making claims that are not evidence based... See how that works? That's not really what's going on. Sure, G. is incentivized to include pages quickly, but they are also incentivized to produce them accurately, and as the above poster indicates, this is quite a hard problem to solve generally. A is al…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One can play this game a lot and most results will return expected cultural biased results. A "kind person" is apparently a white girl. A "good person", a white woman. A "bad person", white men. A "evil person", white men. A "honest person", equal mix of white women and white men. "Dishonest person", white men in suits. "Generous person", hands of white women. "Happy person", women of color. "Unhappy person", old whi…
Down voted because this is just a lie. "Kind person" - pictures of men women, children, of all ages and colors. "good person" - Mostly pictures of two hands holding. No clear bias towards women at all. If anything, more of the hands look "male". "Bad person" - Nearly 100% cartoon characters Absolutely ridiculous that you would take the time to write up such fake nonsense.
This problem is known as "attribution" - you have a "no" or "without" in the sentence, but you don't know where it belongs. One could (and one does) argue that the problem cannot be solved with statistical methods (ML), especially not in any domain where accuracy is required, such as medical recored analysis: "no evidence of cancer" and "evidence of no cancer" are very different things. Zooming out, the language fiel…
Does she want ice cream? Answer: No, she doesn't. I added a not, so she's reversing the answer as Japanese people do.
The number of times I've been dumbstruck by this is larger than I'd like to admit, and I'm a coder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least this is relatively innocuous. Until recently if you did a Google Image Search for "person" or "people", it only showed white men.
I couldn't quite believe your comment when I read it so I did a Google image search for "person" and the results weren't a lot better than you'd suggested. Mostly white men, a few white women, a very few black women, a handful of Asians, and multiple instances of Terry Crews. The net result of that Google search, combined with the "Shirt Without Stripes" repo, leaves me even more unimpressed with the capabilities of…
This problem is known as "attribution" - you have a "no" or "without" in the sentence, but you don't know where it belongs. One could (and one does) argue that the problem cannot be solved with statistical methods (ML), especially not in any domain where accuracy is required, such as medical recored analysis: "no evidence of cancer" and "evidence of no cancer" are very different things. Zooming out, the language fiel…
Reminds me of the confusion with negatives and languages: -Vill du inte ha glass? [Don't you want ice cream?] -はい [Yes] Does she want ice cream? Answer: No, she doesn't. I added a not, so she's reversing the answer as Japanese people do. The number of times I've been dumbstruck by this is larger than I'd like to admit, and I'm a coder.
Q: "Do you mind if I sit here?"
A1: "Not at all!"
A2: "Sure!"
Both are valid answers and mean the same thing, the person asking is welcome to sit there. This has always amused me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't login to Google, have tracking disabled, use uBlock and pihole; FF/Brave. I mean, that's probably why they are equivalent for you. You've chosen privacy over better results (which is a totally legit choice to make!).
Well it's hard to tell objectively but it seems to have got worse without me changing the privacy settings. I guess that's their quid pro quo though.
Have you tried viewing pages past the first page? Often times it's just filled with what looks like foreign hacker scam websites.
This problem is known as "attribution" - you have a "no" or "without" in the sentence, but you don't know where it belongs. One could (and one does) argue that the problem cannot be solved with statistical methods (ML), especially not in any domain where accuracy is required, such as medical recored analysis: "no evidence of cancer" and "evidence of no cancer" are very different things. Zooming out, the language fiel…
There have been some lengthy discussions on HN about vertical search and how Google doesn't always buy up a small company; they litigate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least this is relatively innocuous. Until recently if you did a Google Image Search for "person" or "people", it only showed white men.
I couldn't quite believe your comment when I read it so I did a Google image search for "person" and the results weren't a lot better than you'd suggested. Mostly white men, a few white women, a very few black women, a handful of Asians, and multiple instances of Terry Crews. The net result of that Google search, combined with the "Shirt Without Stripes" repo, leaves me even more unimpressed with the capabilities of…