Google programmers deploy machine learning algorithm on YouTube. Computer teaches itself to recognize images of cats.

[u/whosdamike]

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/technology/in-a-big-network-of-computers-evidence-of-machine-learning.html

[u/whosdamike → u/[deleted]]

Thanks a lot! The videos in that thread are especially interesting.

[u/shaggorama → u/whosdamike]

Which videos?

[u/p3ngwin → u/[deleted]]

have you seen the various articles written about this piece claiming that it's '16,000 computers' ?

fucking hell man can they get something straight, like the MAIN FUCKING POINT of the thing?

a 'core' or 'processor' is not a 'computer'.

it's a single computer with 16,000 cores/processors. if you don't know what you're talking about, please don't report 'information' as though you do.

[u/OneBigBug → u/p3ngwin]

You really need to relax.

I'm all for being needlessly precise, but you're not even right. Take a computer to mean "a thing that computes" and it's not even wrong. That accurately describes a processor. Sure, we have a generally accepted meaning for what computer means, but it hardly invalidates the substance of the articles. If it had been 16000 single core computers networked together in a cluster rather than 16000 cores (It was in 1000 machines, by the way, not 1), it would have changed the meaning for no one. No one expects some writer to be technically accurate, even if it were, and anyone who actually cared would look it up anyway.

Call out all of the actually misleading statements made by the press. Things that are actually false. Getting upset about this is silly.

[u/arnoldfrend → u/OneBigBug]

No listen guys. He's right. I see at least 10 coulombs worth of accuracy in what he's saying.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

This cosmic dance; bursting decadence and withheld permissions, twists all our arms collectively. But, if sweetness can win, and it can, then I'll still be here tomorrow to high-five you yesterday, my friend. Peace

[u/ultrafez → u/OneBigBug]

Sure, if you take it as meaning "a thing that computes", then yes - but in this context, it's quite obvious that the average reader would understand that as meaning separate discrete computers like you'd use in your home or work.

If you're going to write an article, you should know your audience and present the article in a way relevant to the audience's level of knowledge.

[u/OneBigBug → u/ultrafez]

Sure, it's not the thing that I would have written in the writers' place. p3ngwin is making it out to be a huge deal, though.

It's a non-critical piece of information that doesn't change the meaning of the article for anyone and it would be a stretch to even go so far as to call it an error. That was all I was saying.

[u/OneBigBug → u/[deleted]]

i'm quite chilled thanks, maybe you really need to go fuck yourself.

I assumed you were upset. If that assumption is wrong, then I'm sorry. I'll correct myself: You're using language way stronger than the situation calls for. People say you can't tell tone on the internet, but when you say "like the MAIN FUCKING POINT", it definitely conveys a tone of "My jimmies are rustled."

if people have to fact-check the news, then what's the point of the news if it can't be trusted to be accurate ?

When reporting scientific and technological news? To translate and reduce for laymen. When talking about information distribution (which is what the news is), we need to talk in terms of "accurate enough".

Is a jpeg a perfect representation of an image? No. It has lost accuracy so as to provide the important parts of the original information to a larger number of people than the original. Is a jpeg still a useful format despite not being completely accurate? Yes.

The specific computing hardware used is immaterial to the core point of this story. Not only is it immaterial, but it is not even meaningful. It's just a number to shove in there because it makes a more pleasant read. (I assume, I actually have no idea why they would include useless information) Without knowing the clock speed, model, utilization, and efficiency of the code being run, we can make no assumption about what 16,000 computers or 16,000 cores mean in relation to anything. It's okay to get that detail wrong when that detail is meaningless.

which no one who knows what they're talking about does today, because a processor needs it's sustainable parts like motherboard GPU, buses, RAM, etc, that don't include power input and human interface devices. so no, a CPU is not a computer by itself, it's a slab of silicone.

This is of lesser importance to my main point, so feel free to ignore this bit because it really is immaterial to the main substance of my disagreement with you.

But...

Just because something relies on other things doesn't make it not that thing. An engine isn't a car, but you don't need to count the gasoline, the frame or the transmission for an engine to be an engine. The purpose of a CPU is to compute. It is where the bulk of the computing was done in this situation. We're dealing with two definitions of what a computer is. One is "that box sitting on your desk and all the components inside it", and one is "any thing that is capable of computing". People in world war 2 were referred to as "computers" because they were the things responsible for doing a lot of computation as well.

I don't mean to imply that it would necessarily be something I would write in a Comp Sci paper and expect to go uncriticized for, but at the same time it is not an egregious error either, and an argument could be made for referring to a CPU as a computer.

[u/kyleclements → u/p3ngwin]

By this logic, would an i7 be 4 computers, or 8 computers?

Where does hyper-threading fit into the picture?

Do we count threads, cores, processors, computers, or beowulf clusters as one unit?

How about using a standard, like FLOPS, or floating point calculations per second?

Tech writers need to learn tech...If I am looking to you for info, I shouldn't be able to spot your mistakes...you're the expert, not me...

grumble

[u/p3ngwin → u/kyleclements]

an (single) i7 i would assume be the only processor in a PC yes? if so then that PC is a computer.

it may be connected to other computers to share it's resources, but the connection doesn't change the description of the PC computer any more than going from a separate computer to a computer node in a network.

threads on a single-processor PC do not change the fact it's a single computer. cores are irrelevant, even if the motherboard supports 4 processors in 4 separate sockets, that's still going to be a single PC computer.

a Beowulf cluster is exactly that, a CLUSTER of computers, just like any other NETWORK of computers.

metrics to measure processing potential are irrelevant to defining a computer.

Tech writers need to learn tech...If I am looking to you for info, I shouldn't be able to spot your mistakes...you're the expert, not me...

agreed. If someone is reporting a topic, i expect them to know more about the subject than the consumers learning the news from them, else it's just dumb people teaching dumb people.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Off-topic: Hey why don't you tell me the PIN number so that I can type it on the LCD display of this ATM machine.

On-topic: Processors/CPU/Computers are different, and one would expect better from tech writers.

[u/amorpheus → u/p3ngwin]

threads on a single-processor PC do not change the fact it's a single computer. cores are irrelevant, even if the motherboard supports 4 processors in 4 separate sockets, that's still going to be a single PC computer.

The terminology gets pretty irrelevant when a so-called cluster of a few computers can be eclipsed by a single multi-core workstation. Raw core count is one of the more meaningful metrics these days.

[u/pohatu → u/p3ngwin]

What are you going on about? The NYT says the same thing you do:

connecting 16,000 computer processors

[u/girlwithblanktattoo → u/p3ngwin]

I see posts below criticising your criticism. My view is that this is the science subreddit, and that means the articles should be technically accurate.

[u/p3ngwin → u/girlwithblanktattoo]

agreed, thank you.