And I'm reminded of a frightening experience. So I'm home after a night of dancing with friends. And I notice a burn hole in the back of my wool sweater. Some jerk with a lighter, I'm sure. But it could have been very bad, if I had been wearing PET fleece.
You aren't taking into account the energy cost of separating substances from each other (understandable, since this isn't widely taught outside of chemical engineering). You can't get electricity by separating dilute carbonic acid from water, or CO2 from air. It's like trying to take the salt out of soup after you've oversalted it. Much better to stop before adding too much.
There could be sampling issues, since you can't measure the whole ocean at once. The CO2 in the atmosphere is linked to the carbonic acid in the ocean, though, and both indicators point in the same direction.
As long as the big ML libraries support these strategies, people will use them. The choice of user language is not critical. Tensorflow/PyTorch are basically an ML-specific programming model with a Python interface.
This is a good point: the tradeoff for learning vs doing depends on how good a learner the individual is. You're describing people who are not efficient at learning. Therefore allocating a lot of learning to them is a bad idea.
Maybe this is why programming interviews are infamous for arbitrary puzzles: the more unexpected and weird, the more the interview tests adaptability rather than current skill.
It doesn't have the range for useful travel. It's designed to get the vehicle up to speed, using almost all its energy, and then drop away. Think of the first stage of a rocket.
I use a site called "ArXiv Sanity Preserver" - it's mainly for machine learning papers based on its current audience, but it provides pretty useful filtering based on user reviews.
In any case, you can still estimate the quality of a paper with a minute of research into the authors. This is a good idea even if it's in a journal.
Computers have been able to do arithmetic faster, better, and cheaper than humans for decades. But we still teach children to do arithmetic, and grade them on how well they do it (almost never as well as a computer). Why? Because doing more useful and creative math is a lot easier if you can do a little arithmetic.
The purpose of college essays has never been the quality of the product. The purpose is to have students practice so that, when they really do have to convey something in writing, they can convey it well. If an idea exists only in my head, it will take a very long time for an essay-writing bot to write it for me.
> The purpose is to have students practice so that, when they really do have to convey something in writing, they can convey it well.
Then have a human grade it. Have personalized feedback instead of a cookie-cutter grading that's just another data collection scheme + some basic keyword matching to catch stupid mistakes.
Although we have machines that now cut and bind books, the best book binding (and most aesthetic) are done by hand by enthusiasts on, e.g., Reddit. Moreover, such book binders don't feel threatened by machines, I would think, like how people who do DIY do it because they like it, rather than because they have to do it.
Even if an AI can write an essay, that would not stop me from writing. Essays have another important dimension, which is that of creativity and the message. I think the only real relevance is in the context of school work, outside of that I don't think the AI's ability is that important. People are intelligent already, and competition between writers or the general tendency to influence each other sometimes is even a good thing.
I think you're right - an essay should communicate a key thought, broken down in logical steps, coherently tied together. This is important for a whole host of skills.
If some more education is needed to make people informed voters, maybe we should add a couple more years to the end of high school. Effectively, community college for all. After all, we expect everyone to be a voter, not just those who go to college.
Hurricane Sandy hit NYC during a spring tide, flooding downtown and knocking out power and a lot of subway tunnels. It cost 53 lives and about $19 billion.
