kollegedave said:

Badpenguin,

I truly hope you are right, and A.I. turns out to be a nothing-burger.

You suggested in your post that A.I. functions may not be "worth it", if you have to check its work. In the legal field, I would argue, this is not true. With some regularity, I use the A.I. feature on Westlaw--legal research software for lawyers, which just incorporated an A.I. search function. Because I worry the A.I. feature might get things wrong, I check all the important citations every time I use it. However, after a few months of use, this feature has not once been wrong. I am still going to check it. More important than this, checking the cite is way quicker than doing the research from scratch. As a result, lawyers who successfully make use of this feature are more productive. More productive individual lawyers results in large employers of legal labor hiring fewer lawyers.

It might be, as you suggest, that A.I. has less of an impact. I don't really think that changes the fundamental premise of my point for aspiring pool players. The cost of education is exceedingly high (for "normal" people), and the pay-off is not what it used to be. In the near term, I still think there is an over-supply of white-collar labor (unless maybe we are talking about work in the sciences). This over-supply, combined with the cost of education, and technological advances (even if A.I. doesn't kill us all), means that simply telling kids to stay in school is too simplistic.

kollegedave

Click to expand...

middleofnowhere said:

How do you trust ai? Just this morning I was doing some research on an electronic part I want to buy. I was checking on manufacturers. I again discovered that AI would lie to me. It totally dependent on how I asked the question.

First I asked the question if the company is a good dependable company. The answer rang it's praises like this is the greatest company in the world.

Then I asked a question about whether there were complaints or any problems with this company in terms of recalls or anything else. That answer painted a picture of a company you would never want to deal with.

What I surmise from this is, AI depending on how you ask the question will tell you what it thinks you want to hear, not the truth.

Click to expand...

penguin said:

The business model is to get the stakehorses and rail bettors involved.

Click to expand...

fastone371 said:

I am of the opinion that UPUSA made a mistake by going to the straight up 30 minute match instead of races to 6 or 7 in a 30 minute time limited match. Getting rid of the golden break was also a mistake, both added an element of uncertainty and excitement to the format. Good luck this weekend!!!!

Click to expand...

gmoney1 said:

anyone know about his cues?

Click to expand...

straightline said:

You calling me out for what? May I ask?

The geometry just assigns finite and "immutable" metrics to those round things. You know like maybe you've watched a carpenter work?
RKC - hope he doesn't mind being thrown into this conversation but this is the best reason for CPG. He has a video for covering a pool table. In it he includes all the details including _ruling for stretch compensation_.
Please don't try and draw a literal analogy to table recovering. (I wonder how many of these you can get away with?) Please read on...



I took this one outta turn. Sorry You and Lou.


I'm pretty sure you are stable in career and poolage so I'll add this:
Purely holographic/Zen/natural systems are prone to normal drift as well as failure by deliberate and calculated interference (sharking, say...) Because of this, the practitioners may require extra ego - ingrained by privilege maybe - IDK, to compete comfortably at championship levels. Many fall anyway; drugs, other vices, debt's big... The high life is real expensive. End obvious|

Click to expand...