Why the law of large numbers?
I’d think it’s p-hacking. Meaning if he tried out many different combinations, the chances are high he’d eventually come across some which are only correlated by chance. Here’s a related XKCD:
Do you know what the B in Benoît B. Mandelbrot stands for?
It’s for Benoît B. Mandelbrot.
In that case it actually makes sense because the main goal is to make an artificial entity appear intelligent to the player. This is not the same as calling all ML algorithms/models AI.
I’m kind of dissatisfied with the answers here. As soon as you talk about actually drawing a line in the real world, the distinction between rational and irrational numbers stops making sense. In other words, the distinction between rational and irrational numbers is a concept that describes numbers to an accuracy that is impossible to achieve in real life. So you cannot draw a line with a clearly irrational length, but neither can you draw a line with a clearly rational length. You can only define theoretical mathematical constructs which can then be classified as rational or irrational, if applicable.
More mathematically phrased: in real life, your line to which you assign the length L will always have an inaccuracy of size x>0. But for any real L, the interval (L-x;L+x) contains both an infinite number of rational and an infinite number of irrational numbers. Note that this is independent of how small the value of x is. This is why I said that the accuracy, at which the concept of rational and irrational numbers make sense, is impossible to achieve in real life.
So I think your confusion stems from mixing the lengths we assign to objects in the real world with the lengths we can accurately compute for mathematical objects that we have created in our minds using axioms and definitions.
Well maybe we should ‘hack’ his limbs off
I love playing this with my cat. Works especially well when you audibly drag your feet and when you move around corners or behind objects a lot. I learned this by watching my cat play with her son. However she only lets me play the prey role and gets aggressive when I do the same to her. Her son also used to let me hunt him a bit, but he disappeared one day :/
I see a lot of hate against the concept of doing one’s own research on the internet and it really bothers me. The problem is not doing one’s own research. The scientists that wrote this paper also did their own research. All scientists (should) do their own research. That’s inherent to science and that’s part of what got humanity this far. The problem is that some people lack the capabilities to properly assess information sources and draw correct conclusions from them. So these people end up with incorrect beliefs. Of course they could just “trust the experts” instead, but how are they supposed to know which experts to trust if they’re not good at assessing sources of information? Finding those experts is in itself a task that requires you to do your own research.
TL;DR: I think this hate on “doing your own research” is unjustified. People believing nonsense is a problem that is inescapable and inherent to humanity.
NOW I CAN SEE THE WALES LOOMING OUT OF THE DARK
Users be like “I’m encountering mostly promotional articles in my RSS feed”
My brother in christ, you curated the feed
Yeah, but if you wanna act out the contents of the book and sell it as a movie, you need to buy the rights.
Should ask somewhere else, you won’t find these people in a federated open-source communist link aggregator website.