Forwarded from Мамкін Архітектор
Півроку назад ми сміялись над людьми, які втрачали гроші та дані через Clawbot, а зараз його додають у Windows, щоб керувати вашим ентерпрайзом
😁9❤1🤡1
Forwarded from дисконнект із реальністю (attanix🐜 🍃)
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥9😁3⚡2🤯1
Forwarded from HN Best Comments
Re: AI outperforms law professors in Stanford Law study
I find this study quite suspect. I'd have to dive deeper but there's definitely significant alarm bells that should be going off for anyone reading.
Figure 2 (page 6) screams problems. There's only 16 professors (3k comparisons each?!?!) and the professors are all over the place. That's very high variance, suggesting the study has no meaningful statistical power. Poor instructor 16 can't catch a break lol
There's also really clear bias given that the main results only feature Google models. Other models show up elsewhere, why not there?
I'm no lawyer, but I'm a pretty competent statistician and can confidently say this paper has a smell to it. I can't call it bullshit, but there are red flags all over
godelski, 7 hours ago
I find this study quite suspect. I'd have to dive deeper but there's definitely significant alarm bells that should be going off for anyone reading.
Figure 2 (page 6) screams problems. There's only 16 professors (3k comparisons each?!?!) and the professors are all over the place. That's very high variance, suggesting the study has no meaningful statistical power. Poor instructor 16 can't catch a break lol
There's also really clear bias given that the main results only feature Google models. Other models show up elsewhere, why not there?
I'm no lawyer, but I'm a pretty competent statistician and can confidently say this paper has a smell to it. I can't call it bullshit, but there are red flags all over
godelski, 7 hours ago
😁5👍2