Adding to this, the most motivated actors to get around it or find an edge case, e.g. in politics, will use it to say "Look, of course the scene depicted in this compromising image actually happened, the detector said so".
It's gotten pretty bad. The comments online most loudly shouting about how they represent humanity and humanness are the first to kick anyone out of the "human" bucket that they don't like.
I think it makes sense to see it positively. If one wants a calculator, we have calculators. The whole point is reaching things that deterministic calculations either can't or don't in a reasonable timeframe.
What seems blatantly obvious does not always represent the underlying reality. This can also be taken as a chance to discover better solutions to a given problem than banning phones.
On the flip side, when measurements don't reveal something that is completely obvious, especially in social sciences, it is very possible the measurement is measuring the wrong thing.
In this case the prevailing theory is that the phones were already banned in classes, so the schoolwide ban didn't do anything to screentime. Which, duh.
It's possible that the justification for phone bans could be along moral lines instead of data-driven. Think of how we regulate teenage sex for instance, those rules aren't based on "data" just common sense and social morals.
This article is fairly standard financial news boilerplate. "Market selloff, thesis is being tested" is an article that gets printed roughly twice a week regardless of what is going on, and is a template that's been run thousands of times.
This is absurd and silly. Discovery doesn't go away because more new things are being discovered. This position only makes sense if you make an arbitrary cut point where some instances "don't count". If you were to go back to scientists or mathematicians several hundred years ago and tell them that one day science would be done by tens of millions of full time researchers around the globe, often working in teams, some of them might also bemoan the loss of the "hero scientist" as any commoner could now participate. But science and math have only benefited from this, and this has increased, not decreased, the beauty and wonder in these fields.
It is not the same because the act of problem solving for discovery is now to be done exclusively by machines, as humans are no longer remotely competitive.
If you read the linked article, the author goes into more detail about how doing mathematics also has been an act of communication with past and present human mathematicians. This is very much true when math and science are done by millions of human researchers, but not so when it is done by massive swarms of agents at a couple labs.
I am sure science and math will benefit in the sense of solving more problems than ever before. But you are not really understanding the agony of the humans caught in the change.
Your reasoning would apply just as well to computers. We have all kinds of things where the expectation is, or was, that you don't ask the computer to do things you don't want, and the times when that expectation has been eroded in favor of "the computer isn't fit for the general public" have been a mistake.
Yes, definitely. The search for a way to root out some kind of ephemeral origin or quality besides what is reflected in the text is fundamentally pointless and doesn't improve anything.
reply