Lemdro.id

1 point

13 days ago

Agree to disagree. Something makes a decision about how to classify the images and it’s certainly not the person writing 10 lines of code. I’d be interested in having a good faith discussion, but repeating a personal opinion isn’t really that. I suspect this is more of a metaphysics argument than anything and I don’t really care to spend more time on it.

I hope you have a wonderful day, even if we disagree.

report

just_another_person@lemmy.world

[ - ]

0 points

13 days ago

It’s Boolean. This isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact. Feel free to get informed though.

report

[ - ]

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=computer+decision+fairness&oq=computer+decison

1 point

13 days ago

Then it should be easy to find peer reviewed sources that support that claim.

I found it incredibly easy to find countless articles suggesting that your Boolean is false. Weird hill to die on. Have a good day.

report

just_another_person@lemmy.world

[ - ]

0 points

13 days ago

LITERALLY from a “baby’s first 'puter” course: https://highered.mheducation.com/sites/007256380x/student_view0/part1/chapter2/reading_selection_quiz.html#:~:text=Although computers may appear to,humans who programmed the computers.&text=Humans are smarter than computers.&text=It is extremely time-consuming,that it makes correct decisions.

Or if you need something more ELI5: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/160lwe8/eli5_where_exactly_do_computers_make_decisions/

report

[ - ]

1 point

13 days ago

You seem very upset, so I hate to inform you that neither one of those are peer reviewed sources and that they are simplifying things.

“Learning” is definitely something a machine can do and then they can use that experience to coordinate actions based on data that is inaccesible to the programmer. If that’s not “making a decision”, then we aren’t speaking the same language. Call it what you want and argue with the entire published field or AI, I guess. That’s certainly an option, but generally I find it useful for words to mean things without getting too pedantic.

report

just_another_person@lemmy.world

[ - ]

-1 points

13 days ago

🙄

“Pedantic Asshole tries the whole ‘You seem upset’ but on the Internet and proceeds to try and explain their way out of being embarrassed about being wrong, so throws some idiotic semantics into a further argument while wrong.”

Great headline.

Computers also don’t learn, or change state. Apparently you didn’t read the CS101 link after all.

Also, another newsflash is coming in here, one sec:

“Textbooks and course plans written by educators and professors in the fields they are experts in are not ‘peer reviewed’ and worded for your amusement, dipshit.”

Whoa, that was a big one.

report

[ - ]

2 points

13 days ago

I think there’s probably a difference between an intro to computer science course and the PhD level papers that discuss the ability of machines to learn and decide, but my experience in this is limited to my PhD in the topic.

And, no, textbooks are often not peer reviewed in the same way and generally written by graduate students. They have mistakes in them all the time. Or grand statements taken out of context. Or are simplified explanations because introducing the nuances of PAC-learnability to somebody who doesn’t understand a “for” loop is probably not very productive.

I came here to share some interesting material from my PhD research topic and you’re calling me an asshole. It sounds like you did not have a wonderful day and I’m sorry for that.

Did you try learning about how computers learn things and make decisions? It’s pretty neat

report