Reyali

joined 2 years ago
[–] Reyali@lemm.ee 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Happy birthday!

[–] Reyali@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

Can you explain what you mean? Because I think we’re reading a very different meaning into it.

I read it as clever wordplay to acknowledge that one’s anecdote is not the same as data (by putting “data” in place of “dote” in ‘anecdote’ due to the similar sound). Considering that “argument from anecdote” is literally considered a type of fallacy, highlighting that one’s own experience is not scientifically rigorous enough to be considered data seems to be in alignment with general thinking on the matter.

Then again I’ve just learned that in 2020 the OED actually published “anecdata” literally as a facetious/disparaging plural of “anecdote,” so perhaps that’s why you take issue with the quote?

[–] Reyali@lemm.ee 11 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Plural of anecdote isn’t anecdata

I love this. Thank you.

[–] Reyali@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah, that’s on OP. The article is actually titled, “Understanding Aggregate Trends for Apple Intelligence Using Differential Privacy.”

[–] Reyali@lemm.ee 38 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Tell me you didn’t read the article without telling me you didn’t read the article.

The entire thing is explaining how they are upholding privacy to do this training.

  1. It’s opt-in only (if you don’t choose to share analytics, nothing is collected).
  2. They use differential privacy (adding noise so they get trends, not individual data).
  3. They developed a new method to train on text patterns without collecting actual messages or emails from devices. (link to research on arXiv)
[–] Reyali@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I agree the wall is convincing and that it’s not surprising that the Tesla didn’t detect it, but I think where your comment rubs the wrong way is that you seem to be letting Tesla off the hook for making a choice to use the wrong technology.

I think you and the article/video agree on the point that any car based only on images will struggle with this but the conclusion you drew is that it’s an unfair test while the conclusion should be that NO car should rely only on images.

Is this situation likely to happen in the real world? No. But that doesn’t make the test unfair to Tesla. This was an intentional choice they made and it’s absolutely fair to call them on dangers of that choice.