The article does not mention this, but it’s also not a correct solution at all for increasing text size (which was what the guy was asking it how to do). From the reader context of the tweet:
The user asked how to increase text size, but Copilot incorrectly advised changing the “Scale” option in Settings > System > Display. This enlarges text, but also resizes UI, apps, and other elements
To change only text size, go to Settings > Accessibility > Text size.
Been a while since I played one. Are there any good and active nowadays?
Aren’t neural networks AI by definition, if we take the academic definition into account?
I know that thermostat is an AI, because it reacts to a stimuli (current temperature) and makes an action (starts heating) basted on it’s state. Which is the formal AI definition.
Wait. That actually means transformers are not AI by definition. Hmm, I need to look into it some more.
EDIT: I was confusing things, that’s the definition of AI Agent. I’ll go research the AI definition some more :D
You’re right, I used a wrong word there. It wasn’t science, more like public perception maybe? I’d consider lack of research as a part of science, though.
I’m not sure what better word would fit there instead. I wouldn’t say it’s the fault of marketing, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt that they thought it’s actually healthier to use this kind of filter.
The comparison that sparks to my mind are vapes. There’s AFAIK lack of research that can tell us anything about long term issues, but a lot of people consider it as healthier. But in this case, common sense is also not correct - because it kind of makes sense that it probably isn’t, and it’s just marketing.
But in the case of an asbestos filter, I can see why people (and common sense at the time) would asume that it helps.
So, I guess common sense is the word that I should’ve used, because that’s what was wrong at the time.
While I get where are you comming from, and I’m also not fan of smoking, isn’t asbestos extremely worse?
I remember my friend had a roof over his summer house that was using asbestos, and it was extreme problem. Like, you can’t even take it down without investing heavily into protection, or hiring a company that specializes in it’s diasposal, because it’s just that much toxic to handle.
My favorite asbestos trivia, which I learned only recently, is that at the start of public realozing that smoking causes cancer, one company came up with the solution of “cigaretes with asbestos filters”.
It’s kind of morbidly funny reminder how catastrophically wrong can current science be.
The article doesn’t really mention it and only focuses on it providing an incorrect value (150% when it’s already at 150%), but this bit that’s added as a reader context to the Tweet is even bigger blunder: