Posts Tagged ‘fromnpc’

Robo-writers: the rise and risks of language-generating AI

April 17, 2021

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00530-0

GPT3

QT:{{”
A neural network’s size — and therefore its power — is roughly measured by how many parameters it has. These numbers define the strengths of the connections between neurons. More neurons and more connections means more parameters; GPT-3 has 175 billion. The next-largest language model of its kind has 17 billion (see ‘Larger language models’). (In January, Google released a model with 1.6 trillion parameters, but it’s a ‘sparse’ model, meaning each parameter does less work. In terms of performance, this is equivalent to a ‘dense’ model that has between 10 billion and 100 billion parameters, says William Fedus, a researcher at the University of Montreal, Canada, and Google.)
“}}

Massive Google-funded COVID database will track variants and immunity

March 29, 2021

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00490-5

Vera Rubin – Wikipedia

March 25, 2021

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Rubin

The coronavirus is here to stay — here’s what that means

February 21, 2021

endemic
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00396-2

The ethical questions that haunt facial-recognition research

December 3, 2020

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03187-3
Thought a lot of the issues discussed in this article were potentially applicable to genomics

Is facial recognition too biased to be let loose?

November 22, 2020

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03186-4

The ethical questions that haunt facial-recognition research

November 22, 2020

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03187-3

Resisting the rise of facial recognition

November 22, 2020

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03188-2

Why do COVID death rates seem to be falling?

November 22, 2020

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03132-4

When did people arrive in the Americas? New evidence stokes debate

September 6, 2020

QT from Nature podcast:{{”
I mean first of all, I think we do have a big problem with deliberate outright fraud, but that’s a kind of separate thing from what happens much more commonly. I think there’s a much more common, and in some ways much more kind of insidious because it’s so widespread, problem of bias towards finding exciting, statistically significant results in the literature. So, if you look at the scientific literature, a huge proportion of the findings that are published there are positive results, right, way more than we would expect. In one study, it’s something like over 90% or maybe even more that.
“}}

22 July 2020

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02200-z