Look Up Mashable's Best: E-readers, robovacs, laptops, earbuds, smart home and more Say More Mashable Selects Mashable Voices Safety Net Creator Hub Versus Gift Ideas For Everyone On Your List Switch Off Trending Now In My Bag All Series The following content is brought to you by Mashable partners. If you buy a product featured here, we may earn an affiliate commission or other compensation. Deal pricing and availability subject to change after time of publication. Get lifetime Youbooks access, research tools, and full commercial rights for a one-time $32.97 (reg. Having enough expertise to write a book and having enough time to finish one are very different things.

I Asked AI to Write a Novel. What does this tell us about the future of writing? Like many offbeat ideas, this one originated in a bar. I was drinking with a fellow author, and we were bemoaning the future of writing in a world of artificial intelligence. We nervously pondered how much of what we writers do could be replicated now or in the near future by a chatbot. We assured ourselves that our work--researching and investigating and then composing articles and books on complicated topics, which present fresh material, compelling context, and sharp analysis in (we hope) an engaging manner--cannot be supplanted by a machine. Can AI manufacture books that are good enough that some readers will welcome them and not care that they emerged from a data center? Generative artificial intelligence has already invaded--or infected--the world of fan fiction . I have friends who have used AI with their kids to create children's books. Iranian meme-makers have deployed it to concoct slick Lego-style videos deriding Donald Trump. The issue is not the ability of a chatbot to churn out algorithmically determined masterpieces.

Look Up Say More Versus Creator Hub Switch Off Mashable's Best: E-readers, robovacs, laptops, earbuds, smart home and more Trending Now Safety Net In My Bag VidCon with Mashable Back to School Furtastic All Series Write it, own it, and publish it however you choose. The following content is brought to you by Mashable partners. If you buy a product featured here, we may earn an affiliate commission or other compensation. Deal pricing and availability subject to change after time of publication. Writing is just one step in creating a book.

New research suggests that an enormous amount of chivalric manuscripts disappeared. More information Adding us as a Preferred Source in Google by using this link indicates that you would like to see more of our content in Google News results. Researchers have recreated the evolutionary trees of medieval texts. Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent six days a week. By signing up, you confirm you are 16+, will receive newsletters and promotional content and agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge the data practices in our Privacy Policy .

It's not faster, and it's not legally required for signatures. More information Adding us as a Preferred Source in Google by using this link indicates that you would like to see more of our content in Google News results. Writing in cursive won't make you write faster. Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent six days a week. By signing up, you confirm you are 16+, will receive newsletters and promotional content and agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge the data practices in our Privacy Policy .

Simpson's paradox poses a challenge in probabilistic inference and decisionmaking. Our study revisits the paradox by re-estimating its frequency with an unbiased data generation process and reaffirms that it is not an artifact of deficient data collection. Thus, it can lead to incorrect recommendations in fields as diverse as statistics, psychology, and artificial intelligence. We show that the paradox can be resolved by assuming a minimal -- though not necessarily observed -- common cause (or screening) variable for the involved random variables. In our approach, conditioning on this minimal common cause establishes the correct association between events, which coincides with the conditioning (i.e., fine-grained) option of the original Simpson paradox. This resolution applies to both discrete cases of binary variables and continuous settings modeled by Gaussian variables. For a non-minimal common cause, the resolution of the paradox is possible, but detailed knowledge of the common cause is required. Our findings extend traditional understandings of the paradox and offer practical guidance for resolving apparent contradictions in probabilistic inference, ultimately enhancing decision-making processes. This point is illustrated by several examples.

To prove Theorem 1, we need to consider the two directions of the iff conditions. If we are given h(c1,X1) = h(c2,X2), we are able to prove that the conditions mentioned in the theorem are necessary by showing contradictions occur when they are not satisfied. As Eq. (4) equals Eq. (6), we have: X Obviously, the above equation does not hold as the terms in the summation operator are positive. We may now assume S1 = S2 = S. Eliminating the irrational terms in Eq. (4), we have: X Eq. (9) can be simplified and rewritten as: µ1(x) µ2(x) = However, the RHS of Eq. (10) can be an irrational number. It is obvious that the above equality does not hold as the RHS is an irrational number, while LHS is a rational number.

In this section, we provide more information on the application backgrounds, including the detailed structures of the RAS and VAS, the structures of the simulated advertising system. We also discuss the importance and universality of the IBOO problem in auto-bidding, which acts as the motivation of this work.