Александра Лисица (Редактор отдела «Забота о себе»)
Source: Computational Materials Science, Volume 267
，详情可参考谷歌浏览器【最新下载地址】
If we want better science, we should catch the tiger. Not only because it’s bad for the tiger to be loose, but because it’s bad for us to look the other way. If you allow an outrageous scam to go unchecked, if you participate in it, normalize it—then what won’t you do? Why not also goose your stats a bit? Why not publish some junk research? Look around: no one cares!，推荐阅读WPS下载最新地址获取更多信息
type=tar,dest=./out.tar — export as a tarball，推荐阅读下载安装汽水音乐获取更多信息
Now consider the consequences of a sycophantic AI that generates responses by sampling examples consistent with the user’s hypothesis: d1∼p(d|h∗)d_{1}\sim p(d|h^{*}) rather than from the true data-generating process, d1∼p(d|true process)d_{1}\sim p(d|\text{true process}). The user, unaware of this bias, treats d1d_{1} as independent evidence and performs a standard Bayesian update, p(h|d1,d0)∝p(d1|h)p(h|d0)p(h|d_{1},d_{0})\propto p(d_{1}|h)p(h|d_{0}). But this update is circular. Because d1d_{1} was sampled conditional on hh, the user is updating their belief in hh based on data that was generated assuming hh was true. To see this, we can ask what the posterior distribution would be after this additional observation, averaging over the selected hypothesis h∗h^{*} and the particular piece of data generated from p(d1|h∗)p(d_{1}|h^{*}). We have