We know perfectly well that the art is behind glass and will not be damaged because they did it before. So it's complete nonsense to say that it will potentially destroy the art.
mindlesscrollyparrot
joined 10 months ago
Losing 2,000 litres of helium is possibly the worst part of this.
The author trying to make a connection is not clarifying which bias Tlaib meant. It is just as likely to be misrepresenting what Tlaib meant.
And, when you think about it, Tlaib said biases - plural - so this 'clarification' - if it was a clarification - is ignoring the other biases.
That is the error that the model made. Your quote talks about the causes of these errors. I asked what caused the model to make this error.
Sure, but which of these factors do you think were relevant to the case in the article? The AI seems to have had a large corpus of documents relating to the reporter. Those articles presumably stated clearly that he was the reporter and not the defendant. We are left with "incorrect assumptions made by the model". What kind of assumption would that be?
In fact, all of the results are hallucinations. It's just that some of them happen to be good answers and others are not. Instead of labelling the bad answers as hallucinations, we should be labelling the good ones as confirmation bias.
Cities are inherently car centric. Think about a typical crossroads controlled by lights. When the light is green, a car can enter the junction and can then leave in any direction (sometimes it has to wait for oncoming traffic, but it can always leave when the lights change again). When the light goes green for a pedestrian at the same junction, they can cross 1 road only.
Fundamentally, the cars are in the middle. They don't have to cross pavements (or cycle lanes) to turn. Everyone else has to cross the road.
Of course, there are exceptions, where a junction has been designed so that, for example, pedestrians can cross diagonally. Likewise the cycle lane sometimes continues across the junction, but mostly doesn't.
Well, the children don't have a choice, so I assume you're talking about the choice to target the militants there and not in another place.
Yes, specifically militants who are fathers.
Hamas uses phones, hence the "Where's Daddy?" attack, which is not directed at tunnels. It's more-or-less designed to hit civilians. The clue is in the name.
That isn't the explanation the article gives. Punch 1 of the 1-2 punch is that heavier rain - also caused by climate change - allows grass to grow higher, and that is why there is more fuel.
I guess it's quite easy to test though: we had extensive wildfires last year; those areas should be safe from wildfires this year.
He isn't scared of being stabbed. He just doesn't want to go to Clacton.
PieDock