behoove
And just like that, Mike Isratel popped into my head to narrate for the rest of your post.
What makes you think it wouldn't? How do you inform yourself about the happenings of the world if not through the news? Or from people who read the news? And of those people, how often do you think they read past the headlines before jumping to a conclusion?
It has nothing to do with the meaning. If your training set consists of a bunch of strings consisting of A's and B's together and another subset consisting of C's and D's together (i.e. [AB]+ and [CD]+ in regex) and the LLM outputs "ABBABBBDA", then that's statistically unlikely because D's don't appear with A's and B's. I have no idea what the meaning of these sequences are, nor do I need to know to see that it's statistically unlikely.
In the context of language and LLMs, "statistically likely" roughly means that some human somewhere out there is more likely to have written this than the alternatives because that's where the training data comes from. The LLM doesn't need to understand the meaning. It just needs to be able to compute probabilities, and the probability of this excerpt should be low because the probability that a human would've written this is low.
Have people just completely forgot how search engines work? If you search for two things and get shit results, it means those two things don't appear together.
A sentence saying she had her ovaries removed and that she is fertile don't statistically belong together, so you're not even getting that.
I'm talking about the problem with the article, not problems with society or the world or anything else. No one's stopping you from being upset at multiple problems at once. Unfortunately, I don't have the means of reaching the arsonist nor the author of the article to make my complaints, nor the means to experience anger (alexithymia), but I can communicate with the people of Lemmy and encourage people to actually think about what they read. It's also just a fun exercise to see how biased articles are written in the first place.
No one is making fun of the LGBQT community because of him.
Not making fun of. Promoting fear, and the idea that they are all dangerous. Rereading the comments, it's actually more an attack on anyone who supports the LGBTQ community than on LGBTQs. I'll quote some of them below for you.
A lipstick wearing arsonist. Sounds like your typical demokrat. (toadlick2)
Another Trans-Terrorist...that'll by the twit 40 Years in Jail. Good, throw away the key. (Pennsyltuckian)
This is what your typical Democrat looks like. (europa2832)
Look at this poster child of the liberal left.. these liberals are the most violent, the most bigoted and the greatest threat to our country.. they say they are for peace.. NO !!! They are not!!! Do u see Conservatives doing this?? Dont Give me that BS of January 6!!! (rockaway1)
This is the face of the left. And they are endorsing it. Nanny P and Schumer and all the crazies in that parties are endorsing violence. (Zee Chen)
I picked out the ones that are most explicit, but just about every comment is saying the same thing.
It would be more effective to "snitch" on doctors who deny such care.
I looked up "yellow journalism". It seems to describe sensational articles, which this is, but that's very broad. I was wondering more about the exact placement of those two words to achieve that sensational effect.
What makes it biased isn't the truthfulness of the literal words, but what it communicates to the reader. There are ways to say that the perpetrator was wearing lipstick such that the reader understand either "transsexuals and crossdressers are violent people" or "this person happens to dress funny and their behaviour has no bearing on anyone else who does the same." Based on the reactions in the article's comment section, this is clearly an instance of the former.
So to summarize, it's not a problem that looks are being highlighted. The problem is that it's done in a way that puts a target on innocent people.
To avoid exhaustion and burnout
Very interesting to see how these articles are written. All it took was two words to take it from an unbiased report to a biased one: "lipstick-wearing".
Does anyone know if there is there a name for this technique?
About three times per day during the work day makes for ~800 times per year. Seems to be on the right order of magnitude to me.
Recovery time can vary a lot depending on the person, the particular muscle group how much volume you do, how hard you push, quality of your sleep, and a bunch of other factors. It's not wild to have arms that recover faster than average.
It's perfectly valid to have a fluctuating schedule too. It's not ideal, but life rarely cooperates to give us ideal conditions. I'd say that if changing it to a fixed schedule is too complicated or makes it less enjoyable and harder to adhere to, then don't do it. Based on what you've written, it seems like you do have a pretty well thought out plan on how to autoregulate and adapt to whatever your work schedule throws at you. That is in itself a rigorous plan. Not everything has to align with our seven day calendars.