casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer

Hey man that's your choice, but please just keep in mind that when you vote for the third party, the other two parties gain more ground than they lose-- both lose your vote, but you're in no way impeding other party from winning. This is why people are saying it's a game of voting against least favored candidates, because your impedance is much more significant than your support.

It won't matter to Republicans what platform the constituents are showing them should be adopted once they institute Project 2025 into law.

Except, as far as I can tell, the system is designed such that citizens can't make them change it-- what are you going to do, vote for nobody and force the government to fix it's shit before electing a new president? I mean, you could revolt but I think we all know how quickly the government would act to squash any meaningful attempt to. And if Project 2025 is allowed to play out, then military can be dispatched to handle simple protests instead of the police, so good luck pressuring the government to do anything at that point.

They already put snipers on rooftops at every University for the Palestine protests. Supposedly this was for public safety as there was intel that things would turn violent, but who really knows the truthfulness of such intel or where the order came down from? When the military becomes your police, this act would pale in comparison.

Remember this when you go to the polls, or when you are considering not to.

With no offense intended, I feel this could be worded a little better. It could also just be my tired brain, though.

Right, I didn't mean to imply that the practice was uncommon, just that using it as a defense of ego so readily was eyebrow-raising. I'm no academic, but I feel like I'd lose respect for my advisor had they used the paper I worked hard on as a way to boost numbers used as personal defense in some petty squabble in a public forum.

Big moves like founding SpaceX

SpaceX

SpaceX

Yeah, even if he is advising or contributing, the way he put it sounds very disingenuous like he's trying to inflate the number for his argument. Which MIGHT mean there likely was not many with immediately recognizable significance in that time (don't yell at me, I have not taken the time to verify this).

Either way, the way he responded comes across as very "I'm published, you're not, neener neener!" which is not a good look for anyone with a doctorates.

Also, genuine question, how significant was the contribution of LeNet-5 to the field of deep learning vs Neocognitron?

He founded SpaceX, which is arguably more important than anything else he or any of Silicon Valley are typically involved with.

Really? Jack Dorsey says it's suffering from the same mistakes Twitter made. Is it still better than Mastodon? I thought Mastodon was as close as we got to solving the problem for now, just lacking adoption and with your typical fedi-drawbacks

I think it's more about how we think about the Turning test and how we use it as a result-- a hammer does a pretty poor job of installing a screw, but does that mean the hammer was designed wrong?

Turing called this test an "imitation game" because that's exactly what it was-- the whole point of the test was to determine whether a system could give convincing enough responses that a human couldn't reliably identify whether they were speaking to a human or a machine. Cleverbot passed the Turing test countless times, but people don't ask it to solve their homework or copywrite for them.

From the wiki article on the Turing Test:

The test results would not depend on the machine's ability to give correct answers to questions, only on how closely its answers resembled those a human would give