I know the trend with AI is to keep the scope generic so it can tackle different domains and look more like us, but I believe that even if we reach that, we'll always come back to make it better for a specific skill set, because we also do that as humans. No reason for an AI driver to know how to cook.
If we narrow the domain as much as possible it will cut the number of experiments it needs to do significantly
Edit: I wonder if its even going to be useful to devote so much resources into making a machine as similar as us as possible. We don't want a plane to fly like a bird, even if we could build it.
For example if Robot 0002 learns that trying to move a pan without using the handle is a bad idea, Robot 0001 would get that update (even if it came before)
I actually burst out laughing when I got to this part.
These people need a serious talking-to. It's clear they have no idea what the sketch was about, and that it was actually deeply and brilliantly anti-sexist to its core. Let alone the of climate of the time, or how their reaction might be received by the great Jane Curtin.
There's also this concept of "irony", but that may a bit too far out for them at this point.
Overloading the discussion of the bylaws change (47 out of 177 posts in topic at the time the moderators closed the topic), which created an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, which encouraged increasingly emotional responses from other community members. The later result of the vote showed 81% support for the most controversial of the bylaws changes, which demonstrates the controversy was blown out of proportion.
Defending “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism”, concepts not backed by empirical evidence, which could be seen as deliberate intimidation or creating an exclusionary environment.
Using potentially offensive language or slurs, in one case even calling an SNL skit from the 1970s using the same slur “genuinely funny”, which shows a lack of empathy towards other community members.
Making light of sensitive topics like workplace sexual harassment, which could be interpreted as harassment or creating an unwelcoming environment.
Casually mentioning scenarios involving sexual abuse, which may be inappropriate or triggering for some audiences.
Discussing bans or removals of community members, which may be seen as publishing private information without permission.
Dismissing unacceptable behavior of others as a “neurodivergent” trait, which is problematic because it creates a stereotype that neurodivergent people are hard to interact with and need special treatment.
Excessive discussion of controversial topics or past conflicts, which could be seen as sustained disruption of community discussions.
Use of potentially offensive terms, even when self-censored or alluded to indirectly.
Making assumptions or speculations about other community members’ motivations and/or mental health.
Source: https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-co...(I don't necessarily agree with either side, I just find it worthy pointing out that the article is bending the story to fit a narrative the author usually tries to paint).
Sorry, but this is memoization.