> I am so tired of seeing visual evidence dismissed by people who refuse to even consider it if it's not endorsed by some large "respecta...
> I am so tired of seeing visual evidence dismissed by people who refuse to even consider it if it's not endorsed by some large "respectable" institution. You mean to say this rock is just a naturally occuring anomaly? Really? Of course it is. That's by far the most likely conclusion. Consider: Curiosity alone sends back between ten and 100 images every day that each contain thousands of objects (mostly rocks). So let's say there are 10,000 objects a day that people can look at (many more if you consider the tiny size of the "face" in this compressed image.) I can't find any actual data on apophenia and pareidolia (finding patterns and faces in randomness, respectively) but given what we know about it the incidence is unlikely to be less than 0.1%, which means we'd expect to see ten objects per day in Curiosity images that look something like a face or other recognizable object, so if a fraction of one percent of those instances are fairly realistic we would expect to see something "very face like" a few times a year. Those numbers are a bit hand-wavy, but they aren't out by orders of magnitude, and from them we can conclude that it would be pretty surprising if we didn't see something pretty facelike now and then in Curiosity imaging. If we didn't, it would be a major surprise. That we do... well, it's what we expect, so we dismiss it as evidence that what we see is of artificial origin. To do anything else would be to ignore what we know about human perception.
Posted by tjradcliffe on Mar 18, 2015, 11:23 PM
Tags
Related issues
- I mean that's the problem though.
- I've always believed the opposite: get conditionals deep in your code so that the higher level control flow is regular.
- The biggest problem with AI isn't being able to do things.
- I am a 3D printing maker type nerd (I make my own tools for other creative tasks, rather than as their own outcomes) and I saw an incredi...
- Of course not, those are clearly scams.
- Claude makes more detailed plans that seem better if you just skim them, but when analyzed, has a lot of errors, usually.
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.7,500 issues0 comments
hackernews (EdTech)
I mean that's the problem though.
I've always believed the opposite: get conditionals deep in your code so that the higher level control flow is regular.
The biggest problem with AI isn't being able to do things.
I am a 3D printing maker type nerd (I make my own tools for other creative tasks, rather than as their own outcomes) and I saw an incredi...
Of course not, those are clearly scams.
Claude makes more detailed plans that seem better if you just skim them, but when analyzed, has a lot of errors, usually.
Effectively everyone is building the same tools with zero quantitative benchmarks or evidence behind the why / ideas … this entire s...
> creating and operating a small company in Germany is a nightmare To be fair, I think the problem operating in Germany is its federated...
> I am so tired of seeing visual evidence dismissed by people who refuse to even consider it if it's not endorsed by some large "respecta...
> I am so tired of seeing visual evidence dismissed by people who refuse to even consider it if it's not endorsed by some large "respectable" institution. You mean to say this rock is just a naturally occuring anomaly? Really? Of course it is. That's by far the most likely conclusion. Consider: Curiosity alone sends back between ten and 100 images every day that each contain thousands of objects (mostly rocks). So let's say there are 10,000 objects a day that people can look at (many more if you consider the tiny size of the "face" in this compressed image.) I can't find any actual data on apophenia and pareidolia (finding patterns and faces in randomness, respectively) but given what we know about it the incidence is unlikely to be less than 0.1%, which means we'd expect to see ten objects per day in Curiosity images that look something like a face or other recognizable object, so if a fraction of one percent of those instances are fairly realistic we would expect to see something "very face like" a few times a year. Those numbers are a bit hand-wavy, but they aren't out by orders of magnitude, and from them we can conclude that it would be pretty surprising if we didn't see something pretty facelike now and then in Curiosity imaging. If we didn't, it would be a major surprise. That we do... well, it's what we expect, so we dismiss it as evidence that what we see is of artificial origin. To do anything else would be to ignore what we know about human perception.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.