I am horrible at chess and easily won. It does play very very badly.
But it is essentially playing bullet chess right? No time to reason and is basically forced to go with it's knee jerk reaction. So maybe it plays reasonably against another average bullet chess player?
This is an instructive demo and makes me pause a bit when thinking about where I would trust using a classifier like this. Also there is no way to fine tune it right? So you are just left to its interpretation of the classification schema?
Building classifiers is hard and forces you into thinking about your problem space and your comfort level with type1 or type2 errors. I fear this will encourage sloppy work because all those decisions are black boxed.
Not like we were in a utopia careful ML applications before this.
Maybe I am just too fussy, but the sliding animation that comes from switching is so disorienting and slow to me. I use multiple desktops a lot and sometimes I need to dart back and forth pretty quick and my god does that blurry transition grate on me. It really makes it feel like I am using a dusty old computer instead of a brand new four thousand dollar top of the line machine.
I have found some hacky options to do this, but they are just too janky for my taste. I would love to have Apple implement this at the OS level so I don't need to keep experimenting with Aerospace/Rectangle/Hammerspoon... Apple please allow me to disable the destop transition animations and make your OS feel snappy for once.
I am constantly so suprised to see this sentiment posted everywhere I see this book mentioned, when the book perfectly mirrored everything I learned in both my physical and cultural anthropolgy 101 courses in college (this was before Sapiens publication).
Seems to me that a reasonable reader should already assume that not all points of debate in the antropolgical literature can be expounded on in a book like this and that you can always find experts who will of course debate what constitutes a fair read of the subject matter. But in my experience the theories and histories laid out in Sapiens matches pretty squarly with what is taught at University at an undergraduate level. And isn't that pretty much what readers of this book expect?
Maybe I should check out that episode to see, but I am wondering if anyone else feels this way?
I'm not sure about Sapiens although I am aware of the popular criticism of it, I'm not informed enough to comment on it specifically. But I do take everything that particular podcast says with a mine of salt.
But it is essentially playing bullet chess right? No time to reason and is basically forced to go with it's knee jerk reaction. So maybe it plays reasonably against another average bullet chess player?
This is an instructive demo and makes me pause a bit when thinking about where I would trust using a classifier like this. Also there is no way to fine tune it right? So you are just left to its interpretation of the classification schema?
Building classifiers is hard and forces you into thinking about your problem space and your comfort level with type1 or type2 errors. I fear this will encourage sloppy work because all those decisions are black boxed.
Not like we were in a utopia careful ML applications before this.