Sentences with phrase «if humans used»

Wow... we'd all still be living in caves if humans used this factor as an excuse for anything difficult.

Criminals responded to the sandbox strategy by writing code designed to detect if a human using a mouse is clicking that payload.

Not exact matches

In the human version, scientists use an RNA guide to direct an enzyme, Cas - 9, to a specific point in any organism's DNA — where, like an eagle - eyed copy editor, the enzyme snips out an errant letter or sequence as if it were expunging a typo.

AI is the broadest term, applying to any technique that enables computers to mimic human intelligence, using logic, if - then rules, decision trees, and machine learning (including deep learning).

«We wanted to see if workers would use these devices over a long period of time, and we found the design of the device is critically important,» says Lucas Carr, assistant professor of health and human physiology at the University of Iowa.

But as we get more used to talking to our gadgets as if they're human, a shakeout seems inevitable.

If you're familiar with the works of Steven Pinker, you'll recognize the incredible importance that language has played in human history in the preservation of information (stories being used to because they were... * SURPRISE!

And if I want to order a pizza, I need to use it by actually speaking to another human being.

If you want to stay away from Chatbots for now (although, by 2020, some 80 percent of businesses will likely be using them), you can bring a more authentic experience to your human conversations by making use of relevant information.

When you do that, you know people are putting what they've learned into practice — and that's valuable because we all know that human nature is such that, if you don't practice what you learn, within 90 days you'll revert back to what you used to do.

«Companies can challenge the bot to prove that it is a human, using various puzzles, and machine learning to determine if it is a real user,» says Rami Essaid, chief product and strategy officer at Distil Networks, another of these vendors.

I don't mean this literally: The «from» line might still be your company's name, but the content should feel as if it comes from a human being, speaking in the first person (using «I» or «we» and addressing the recipient as «you»), with natural - sounding language.

Among Musk's concerns regarding AI are the idea that artificial intelligence could become dangerous if it evolves past the point of human intelligence, and that unregulated AI could potentially be used to start global conflicts by «manipulating information.»

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services deems childcare affordable if no more than 10 percent of a family's income is used for that purpose.

If and when Facebook does get there, the company is going to have to prove the conversations won't be used for anything beyond simple suggestions — and that humans aren't reading them.

In a sense this is about inequality, and the diverging fortunes of different bank employees: At the high end, banking remains a human enterprise of valued professionals interacting face - to - face with clients, including, if the clients want, by using terrible terrible voicemail.

He said he would accept the inclusion of «sexual orientation» in the Canadian Human Rights Act if it were «clearly defined, but not if it were used as a precedent for further benefits like marital status,» the magazine stated.

On the other hand, corporate recruiters may well value an applicant tracking system that can integrate with their core human resource information system (HRIS), if they currently use one.

If you root for humans over machines, you should probably favor «actively managed» funds where real humans use their experience, smarts, and savvy to try making money.

If you don't know the custodian of each plan, try using LinkedIn to find contacts in Human Resources or the Benefits Departments of your former employers.

The theory behind it is simple: If Facebook has experimented on its users to find new and exciting ways to get us to use it in the way they'd prefer, we should also feel free to experiment on Facebook, and see if those experiments change how we think about what we share with one of the biggest repositories of human data in historIf Facebook has experimented on its users to find new and exciting ways to get us to use it in the way they'd prefer, we should also feel free to experiment on Facebook, and see if those experiments change how we think about what we share with one of the biggest repositories of human data in historif those experiments change how we think about what we share with one of the biggest repositories of human data in history.

So, by your reasoning, if «People put so much importance on words» (implying that they don't matter and we shouldn't take thought of how we use them) then I ought to be able to sing along with the lyrics from pac's «hit»em up» with my black friends, curse in a kindergarten class as well as a corporate meeting for my boss... what impression would a client have of my boss if I were cussing in a professional meeting or at a charity event... it doesn't add up, it's a cop - out rebuttal... trying to find loopholes or applying «human reasoning» like» ll take a swearing guy who's helpful» doesn't change Jesus or scripture it's just setting up a what - if scenario and trying to allow that to in some way justify your stance when again, that doesn't change The Holy Spirit or His heart in those who have been born again... the verses (inspired by His own Spirit) speak for themselves.

And what if, instead, there's a supreme being who says, «let me reward those who have used their human faculties, reasoning and intellect,» and to add the drama that you so love, «and let me punish for eternity those with weak will who blindly adopted the fantasties and fairy tales pushed upon them without ever questioning...» What do you do then???

people really need to study the bible — not for Christianity sake but for theirs - the athiest would like everyone to understand them and used this phrase — But when I explain that atheism is central to my worldview — that I am in awe of the natural world and that I believe it is up to human beings, instead of a divine force, to strive to address our problems — they often better understand my views, even if we don't agree.

If you don't have the ability to put yourself in another human being shoes then we have no use for you.

I think too that if we're going to start using the Sacred Text for prooftexting our particular understanding of human psychology then what about the claims of Jeremiah that speaks of the unknowability of the human heart?

Although the machines involved are extraordinarily dangerous, the moral principle governing their use is perfectly ordinary: It is the familiar one that human beings should engage in an activity that poses dangers to others only if, in the totality of the circumstances, doing so is reasonable» i.e., if the good to be achieved, taking account of the probability of success, is proportionate to the possible ill effects.

On the contrary, if certain human beings build and use military drones that «make their own kill decisions,» these human beings will be morally and legally responsible for the results.

If, as Hartshorne does, one uses one's prior understanding of various types of human experience as the source of generalized descriptions which together constitute the final concept of experience, how does one decide whether the generalizations have been radical enough to support application to all — including nonhuman — experiences or were sufficient only to cover human experiences?

If god doesn't use logic, then god is as illogical as humans.

OAR then uses it in a cloning procedure that would be otherwise immoral if used on humans.

If so, take a look at our entire human history for countless examples of physical processes causing things that we used to think were magic.

As Wellhausen once remarked, everything that Jesus said (save, I think, his teaching about God's «seeking the lost») can be found in the highest and best Jewish teaching; although Wellhausen had to add that much more may be found in this teaching which Jesus eliminated or rejected — our Lord's human genius here, if the word may be used, was in his selectivity.

I see humans read the Bible as if it were written originally by modern day americans using modern day English... one has to remember that the Bible was written from a Jewish culture of 2000 plus years ago..

Catholicism stresses the «like» of any comparison (human passion is like divine passion), while Protestantism, when it is willing to use metaphors (and it must if it is to talk about God at all), stresses the unlike.»

We shall come back again and again to the same crooked human thinking: If God can use anything, I can do anything.

If science able to offer any truths that would help humans solve the kinds of real psychological, social, political problems that they constantly face, then I'm sure that as a species we would be rational enough to use those truths.

But if you insist then I would say, Lahwla Walaqwa Alla Bilah, and then thank you for helping me to know and understand that those things you call for are not possible and all just ink on paper, unreal and just was and is being used for what is called propaganda and that all we will harvest being over here are flags in the name of practicing your human rights or your freedom of speech.

Well if we use SCIENCE and assume Jesus was a real human being then he was a hebrew of the time period which means he most probably had tan olive skin, dark brown eyes, a black beard and black curly hair.

Murray observes in the last chapter that «human beings acting in a private capacity if restrained from the use of force have a remarkably good history» (author's emphasis).

If we hope to persuade people to live as lovers and not as brutes, we ought never to use human lawlessness and despair as a prolegomenon to the Christian faith.

But if to use such weapons is wrong, it must also be wrong to possess them, since possession tempts powerfully toward use — whether by deliberate decision, technological accident or human error.

Second, I have never claimed that as a human I will have the answer for everything, but the one answer I will never use is «if I can't understand it, it must the doing of a supernatural being».

Though people may describe themselves by using terms like «gay» or «queer» which are commonly used in today's culture, as Christians who believe in man created in the image of God, we should ask if these cultural terms are, in fact, true ontological categories of the human person, in accord with the blueprint of human existence.

Just remember that God does not repent of his calling and if you were given gifts to enrich the human race... use them no matter where you are.

We could use progressive strategies of redistribution to make everyone in America a comfortable consumer and still face widespread personal, working - class dissatisfaction if we don't address the basic human need for work, a need more fundamental than the desire to possess twenty - first - century consumer goods.

To Paul, Peter was doing the same as the false brothers tried to do in Jerusalem (the word for compel is used in both 2.14 and 2.3).34 Therefore, if the Galatians choose circumcision, they will no longer be servants of Christ; they will be servants of a human authority, namely those who require circumcision.

If there is a basic thesis, it is that Whitehead has used the concept of the electromagnetic field in physics as a model for human experience (PW 125/134, 183/201; RL 285).

If humanity is not to be viewed as lord and master of the natural world, with unlimited rights to use it without regard to the effects, then what is the place of human beings in nature?

Believe in God is not solely found in intellect (although if at least little intellect isn't used it turns kinda silly) at it's core it is a spirit thing that surpasses human communication and imposable to believe or understand unless experienced.