Holy jokes batman, that would have been better.
Soyweiser
joined 2 years ago
Sorry but you are wrong, they have one emotion, and it is mega horny, the pon far (or something, im not a trekky, my emotions are light, dark and grey side, as kotor taught me).
Thats worse you say?
Don't worry, the people who would go and accuse you of being a pedophile would do so with or without this tool. It would just give them faux legitimacy.
E: post + profile picture was a lol moment however.
Yeah including people you dont like 'accidentally' is a big risk. Also per definition the data only includes known/convicted pedos.
The implication here that it isnt methodically flawed is quite something.
E: and I don't have the inclination for to do the math, but a 97% accuracy seems to be on the unusable side considering the rate of 'criminals' vs not-criminals in the population. (Yeah, see also 'wtf even is a criminal').
The war on weird looking people continues. (The false positive/negative rate of this bs is immense. Wait a 69% succes rate? Ow god the false positives on that are going to be immense (even worse, the model works worse than random chance on a online game dataset, and then also the statistical uselessness of 69% due to low amount of pedos in general public isn't even mentioned in the conclusions, toss this where it belongs, in the dustbin of history).
wikipedia talk pages: what is wrong with you people
Sorry this remark is a WP:NAS, WP:SDHJS, WP:NNNNNNANNNANNAA and WP:ASDF violation.
This kind of stuff, which seems to hit a lot harder than the anti trump stuff, makes me feel that a vance presidency would implode quite quickly due to other maga toadies trying to backstab toadkid here.
For me it feels like this is pre ai/cryptocurrency bubble pop. But with luck (as the maga gov infusions of both fail, and actually quicken the downfall (Musk/Trump like it so it must be iffy), if we are lucky). Sadly it will not be like the downfall of enron, as this is all very distributed, so I fear how much will be pulled under).
I'd assume that is very intentional, nominative determinism is one of those things a lot of LW style people like. (Scott Alexander being a big one, which has some really iffy implications (which I fully think is a coincidence btw)).
It wasn't really done that much during the era when Scott A was called the new leader of lesswrong so not sure if it has increased again. I assume a lot still do, as I assume a lot also pretend to have read it. Never looked into any stats, or if those stats are public. I know they put them all on a specific site in 2015. (https://www.readthesequences.com/) The bibliography is a treat (esp as it starts with pop sci books, and a SSC blog post, but also: "Banks, Iain. The Player of Games. Orbit, 1989.", and not one but 3 of the Doc EE Smith lensmen books).
Also an extremely good false positive rate