The author trying to make a connection is not clarifying which bias Tlaib meant. It is just as likely to be misrepresenting what Tlaib meant.
And, when you think about it, Tlaib said biases - plural - so this 'clarification' - if it was a clarification - is ignoring the other biases.
That is the error that the model made. Your quote talks about the causes of these errors. I asked what caused the model to make this error.
Sure, but which of these factors do you think were relevant to the case in the article? The AI seems to have had a large corpus of documents relating to the reporter. Those articles presumably stated clearly that he was the reporter and not the defendant. We are left with "incorrect assumptions made by the model". What kind of assumption would that be?
In fact, all of the results are hallucinations. It's just that some of them happen to be good answers and others are not. Instead of labelling the bad answers as hallucinations, we should be labelling the good ones as confirmation bias.
Cities are inherently car centric. Think about a typical crossroads controlled by lights. When the light is green, a car can enter the junction and can then leave in any direction (sometimes it has to wait for oncoming traffic, but it can always leave when the lights change again). When the light goes green for a pedestrian at the same junction, they can cross 1 road only.
Fundamentally, the cars are in the middle. They don't have to cross pavements (or cycle lanes) to turn. Everyone else has to cross the road.
Of course, there are exceptions, where a junction has been designed so that, for example, pedestrians can cross diagonally. Likewise the cycle lane sometimes continues across the junction, but mostly doesn't.
That isn't the explanation the article gives. Punch 1 of the 1-2 punch is that heavier rain - also caused by climate change - allows grass to grow higher, and that is why there is more fuel.
I guess it's quite easy to test though: we had extensive wildfires last year; those areas should be safe from wildfires this year.
Well, there you are again. You said "my questioning of what you claimed". That isn't self reflection. If you aren't asking in bad faith, you need to spend more time on your wording.
The downvotes are because it seemed that you were asking in bad faith. You said "I believe it is true", but now you say (admit) that you were questioning it.
They say "she was being fed the questions". What would be the point of being fed the questions while you are on stage?!
I know that what they really mean is that she was being fed the answers. It just shows exactly how little effort they put into these claims.
The attraction of Linux is precisely that it isn't one of the two 'standards'. Your working environment doesn't get determined by some product manager in a far-away office, who has a set of target users in mind, which he's given fictional names, biographies and mugshots.
Do you think that these might be some of the subpar dwellings that they're talking about: https://southamericabackpacker.com/exploring-slums-of-medellin-colombia/ ?
No, I'm not serious. Of course they don't need roofs or windows or multiple storeys. I'm just joking about that stuff.
The ones in Texas are built of a "high performance polymer concrete", so probably including cement and contributing to climate change. They appear to be single storey as well.
Losing 2,000 litres of helium is possibly the worst part of this.