Just a short question: Why does someone choose to publish something like that on github?
because it is easy for them?
Shirt Without Stripes
591–600 of 639 posts
Re: Shirt Without Stripes
#592Re: Shirt Without Stripes
#593Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like, when was the last time this was considered ideal? “Yes, I would like an unstriped dress shirt please” “How about this striped shirt?” “No thank you, I would like an unstriped dress shirt please” “I have some lovely jogging pants” “Ok, I need to be clear here, I would like a dress shirt that has no stripes” “Can I interest you in a white undershirt? People who buy dress shirts usually buy undershirts” ....
I think if you were visiting a personal tailor, or perhaps talking to a shop assistant, you might get something akin to that. T: I think pink would look good on you, and it's very fashionable right now. You: Just bring me some yellow shirts to try. T: Oh, I got these, and brought this pink one anyway; try it! But, of course Google isn't making fashion suggestions. But then, ... the tailor might also be just trying to…
Lot of mental gymnastics in this thread to defend some godawful AI.
Re: Shirt Without Stripes
#594Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
English has similar confusion even for plain, non negated questions. 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.
That's an excellent example to show why statistical NLP outperforms discrete parsing using logical rules. That A1 and A2 means the same is something that is clear to us from the context. This is something a continuous vector space model can capture and a discrete rules based model cannot.
Re: Shirt Without Stripes
#595This 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…
It seems like the attribution problem is an English problem. The query doesn't have to be English. https://www.google.com/search?q=shirt+-"stripes"
English is fine, googling for "stripeless shirt" works well enough. The question "shirt without stripes" is begging us to ask is whether we might want to reevaluate projections of imminent AI takeover.
Re: Shirt Without Stripes
#596This 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…
While this is indeed an example of the attribution problem, I'd argue that this particular query will never be solved. I don't search for a "shirt without stripes", I search for a "solid shirt, or a " hawai'ian shirt". I'd be curious to see how many sentences with attribution problems actually have other structural issues. If I want to write clearly and without ambiguity, I rewrite sentences that have these problems.…
Yo seem to think that queries of this form are ambiguous, but they are not. Given the set of shirts, and that the subset of 'shirts with stripes' is well-defined (which you apparently accept, given that you seem to think that 'shirts with stripes' is an unambiguous query (which it is)), then its complement is well-defined; there is no 'Russell's Barber' paradox here, as there is no self-reference.
Re: Shirt Without Stripes
#597Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are, like DuckDuckGo. But the first complaint is usually "their results aren't as good as Google" and that's because Google in reality still gives better results because of their (lack of) privacy. People want better results but don't want to be tracked, and those things are in opposition to each other.
> There are, like DuckDuckGo. But the first complaint is usually "their results aren't as good as Google" and that's because Google in reality still gives better results because of their (lack of) privacy. Alternative hypothesis: people only have had Google as reference for years, which means that Google represents "reality" to them. Anything that looks even slightly different is therefore worse.
I don't know about you, but 4 out of 5 times, when I research my ddg query, which did not produce a single relevant result on the first page, on Google, I get a good result as #1... Maybe I search google optimized.
Still though: This is not evidence for Google's search quality. I, too, feel, like the results got worse over the last years.
Also: Afaik, DDG uses bing under the hood, not what I would call "search startup" in the sense of revolutionizing search quality.
Re: Shirt Without Stripes
#598On a related note, Google seems to favor forum replies which instruct users to perform a search in order to find the answer to the question that they had asked.
Re: Shirt Without Stripes
#599Earlier quoted context omitted.
SEO'd garbage often contains ads, including Google ads. There's no incentive for Google to fix this problem. Google's job is not to give you great search results, it's to keep you clicking on ads. Ideally it would be the ads on the search results page directly, but if that doesn't work then a blogspam website with Google ads is the next best thing. If Google was a paid service this problem would be solved the next da…
> If Google was a paid service this problem would be solved the next day. Nope. Cable television was introduced with the promise of no ads. That didn't last long.
Cable television could get away with it because for a long time there was no alternative, so they could renege on the promise of no ads and still keep making money (though now people have alternatives in the form of streaming services and cable television is circling the drain).
Search engines are a relatively competitive market. A paid Google with no extra perks will not fly when the majority of people will just flee to Bing. For a paid Google to be successful it has to provide additional value such as filtering out ads, blogspam, Pinterest and other wastes of time.
Re: Shirt Without Stripes
#600Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Google searches are not reproducible, different users can get different results on the same query.
[deleted]