This is clearly not just another story of human innovation. This is not just the usual trade-off between risks and opportunities.
Why? Because it simply automates the human away.
Who wouldn't opt for a seemingly flawless, super effective buddy (i.e. an AI) that is never tired, always knows better? if you need some job done, if you're feeling lonely, when you need some life advice..
It doesn't matter if it might be considered "just imitation of human".
Why would future advancements of it keep being "just some tool" instead of largely replacing us as (humans) in jobs, relationships, ...?
Its FP16/Int8 inference only (cause you can only access it via apple frameworks that dosent support training).
Also its only used if your data is small enough (4mb cache) it wont be useful for big transformers/ big images processing in a while.
It reads as if you expose the article to make a wrong statement about incident rates.
The article however however is purely right in this regard. It does not talk about comparison of incident rates at all. Its first sentence already clearly talks about numbers of HIV diagnoses.
If your comment would be like "Don't read the title in a wrong way. HIV is still much more common among lgb men than among heterosexual men and women. Reason is that lgb men are around 2.3% of all men compared to heterosexual mean and women who are 93.2% of the population" it might be helpful.
> It reads as if you expose the article to make a wrong statement about incident rates.
No? But you could read it as "exposing" the fact that it mentions incident rates only vaguely [1], and that the title is chosen strategically. (The article looks seems to be part of a public health campaign to encourage heterosexuals to test for HIV, and that's probably part of the reason.)
There were a couple of comments which raised valid points about my rough estimate though.
[1]: It only says "Gay and bisexual men are still more impacted by HIV relative to population size", but the question of by how much seems to be left an exercise for the reader.
I guess I'm part of this wave. Just these days I struggle with the decision if I should rather (a) quit my job without having found a new position yet or (b) keep working while applying for new jobs. (I'm located in Germany)
Pros of early quitting:
(1) I'm not learning anything anymore in my current job. The earlier the better...
(2) My current job is subject to 3 months' notice, so I'm definitely free from October onwards
(3) I hope this gives me some extra motivation to work on data science projects in my spare time
Cons of early quitting:
(1) Obviously no income anymore from October onwards unless I have found a new job.
(2) From October onwards, it might be hard to find a new flat as the landlords request to get evidence of a regular income
Why? Because it simply automates the human away. Who wouldn't opt for a seemingly flawless, super effective buddy (i.e. an AI) that is never tired, always knows better? if you need some job done, if you're feeling lonely, when you need some life advice.. It doesn't matter if it might be considered "just imitation of human".
Why would future advancements of it keep being "just some tool" instead of largely replacing us as (humans) in jobs, relationships, ...?