They "address" it by making false statement that the video stream is highly predictable. Sure, you might be able to predict 99% of video stream (for which you'd need to have a physics model, negating the whole point of baby fast learning), but the remaining 1% is still in terabytes if not petabytes per year.
It's a great post. Or as Scott Alexander put it at the time:
> A machine learning researcher writes me in response to yesterday’s post, saying:
>> I still think GPT-2 is a brute-force statistical pattern matcher which blends up the internet and gives you back a slightly unappetizing slurry of it when asked.
> I resisted the urge to answer “Yeah, well, your mom is a brute-force statistical pattern matcher which blends up the internet and gives you back a slightly unappetizing slurry of it when asked.”
He did not tell anyone to do these things nor do I claim he did. He did ask his staff to "look into" whether either of these sanitation methods "could be used inside the human body", which is a bit like if I asked my doctor if I could eat laundry soap and shampoo instead of showering and doing laundry.
The very fact that these ideas exist inside a US president's skull is VERY SAD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.
Again, no quotes. But even as-is the idea of using ultraviolet to disinfect internal surfaces is not bonkers to any degree. Like I could see it working for nasal disinfection.
In fact that's so obvious, that given you get very sad that someone else could even consider that tells me that you don't really know what you are talking about. Ironically, unlike Trump.
Won't comment on the bleach one without a quote though.
As for me, I don't think you need a phd to read the warning stickers on bleach and isoproponal which say "do not injest" [2] [3] or warnings on germicidal lamps that say "do not expose to eyes or skin" [4]. If you do or have otherwise hidden knowledge why these should be ignored, say so.
Next you will tell me that he isnt talking about UVC lamps, and I'll have to admit he speaks so vaguely that you can interpert his own words as almost anything.
Why do I have to present evidence for something I'm not claiming? Your response fits the picture drawn by the comment on out of context.
> As for me, I don't think you need a phd to read the warning stickers on bleach and isoproponal which say "do not injest"
Yes, but you need more brainpower to understand that these warnings are for specific products and can't be generalized without research. The concept that dangerous substances are widely used in medicine in right quantities with right delivery methods is rather well known, and since you don't appear to grasp the connection after multiple comments alluding to it... well, that doesn't paint your opinion about Trump in a good light.
It is absolutely bonkers to think about using UV to disinfect human skin, let alone the inside of the human body.
Any UV radiation strong enough to destroy the cells of bacteria is strong enough to destroy human cells. We know that UV-radiaton that's not strong enough to kill bacteria is already harmful to human skin (we call the phenomenon sunburn).
> UV-C has demonstrated the ability to effectively and safely inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus up to 99.9%
> There are four methods to disinfect the air with UVGI technologies: 1) ..., 2) irradiating the full room, whole-room far UV-C when rooms are occupied 3) ...
Truly, the lack of critical thinking in the left meme reposters was the main cause of dems losing the last election. You guys are pretty successful in demonstrating that.
Your source talks about the disinfection of air, contains no references to disinfection of skin, and only mentions skin three times, twice to specifically warn against skin damage from UVC exposure, and once to clairify which types of UV light penetrate the skin.
Are you asking me to find evidence counter to my understanding of situation? Show that he was prosecuted for copying. From a quick skim I'm in doubt anything he was found guilty of is copying.
You almost convinced me, but then I remembered that you can sell that multi-million dollar home somewhere in the early 5-10 "years of grinding" and still end up the same.
reply