It points out how tiny and inadequate human science is compared to God.Neto wrote:The cartoon represents a discussion, an ARGUMENT, really.
If the computer algorithm cannot evaluate the text in terms of the interchange and contrasting statements involved here, then it is primitive at best.
The CONTEXT of the whole 'conversation' is clearly against slavery, and openly states that there is no difference in the humanity of the African slaves and their white masters.
Can the computer model not even look at what statement is made last?
(In general prose, that would be considered the conclusion.)
If we ran the Scripture through this same computer program, then would Paul be saying that we SHOULD multiply sin in order to make room for more grace, and thereby glorify God more?
(That's just the first example that comes to mind.)
It makes me wonder if this algorithm can also not understand rhetorical questions.
That is basic for understanding English, for which I would suppose the computer model was originally created.
As boot points out, look at the grand human effort put into formulating these algorithms, and how limited and deficient they are. i appreciate the human work, i have worked in university computing departments from the early mainframe years, before PC’s were only a far-out dream, presently, my family works with advanced computers in different fields on the west coast - i get the effort!
But. Playing God is tough work.
IF Adam Ford’s sole intent was to expose weakness in these algorithms, good for him.
more than 1 great message is fine.
It’s necessary, or, these tech entities would have the world kneeling to them. A “tail wagging the dog” scenario. They are so big and so monied, it’s easy to become fooled.
“Primitive,” i believe, is a great word for it. It feels harsh now. Wait 7 years.
Today’s tech will quickly be tomorrow’s reference to mainframe computers. Primitive, right?
In those days, not long ago, mainframes were awe-inspiring. Today, they are comical. Primitive!
What has happened to human memory?
It seems, as technology advances, the collective human brain function seems to diminish. Uncomfortable thoughts. Because humans have big egos! We always want to believe we are advancing! Yes, to the point we will lie to ourselves about it.
Josh wrote:I would put good money on this censorship decision being made by a human (albeit probably one not paying very much attention), not an algorithm.
Chances are that many, many people clicked the "Report" button, probably as part of a concerted left-wing harassment campaign against Adam Ford.
I’ve been following a Reuter’s FB page for a few months, mostly to read viewer comments.
wow. the great number are leftist sycophants who do not seem to bother reading reports they vigorously comment on, they are often rude+crude, they aggressively and self-righteously “report” and troll anyone perceived to have an opposing view -
so, yes, i expect your guess about Adam Ford being a target of such, is accurate.
considering Reuter’s FORMER reputation of being a moderate news source, one would expect they would discourage this sort of following. no sign of it! if i were them, i’d shut the page down to be rid of them, then consider whether starting fresh, in attempt to attract a more balanced following.
when i read that page, i expect to see them baiting their viewers. that’s pretty much what it is now.