Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Justin Fisher's avatar

    To be worth using, a detector needs not only (A) not get very many false positives, but also (B) get…

  2. Mark's avatar

    Everything you say is true, but what is the alternative? I don’t think people are advocating a return to in-class…

  3. Deirdre Anne's avatar
  4. Keith Douglas's avatar

    Cyber security professional here -reliably determining when a computational artifact (file, etc.) was created is *hard*. This is sorta why…

  5. sahpa's avatar

    Agreed with the other commentator. It is extremely unlikely that Pangram’s success is due to its cheating by reading metadata.

  6. Deirdre Anne's avatar
  7. Mark's avatar

Recovered patients who allegedly got reinfected?

Brian Leiter

They weren't, they were false positives, as suspected originally. 

(Thanks to Eric Winsberg for the pointer.)

Leave a Reply to David Ozonoff Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One response to “Recovered patients who allegedly got reinfected?”

  1. David Ozonoff

    I suspect there is more to the Committee's report than mentioned in this article. Their false positive explanation is quite plausible and many of us suspected it was a strong possibility, but this news report doesn't make a strong case for it. So as with much else, we will have to await better and more thoroughly reported data and probably better studies of this important question.

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress