robert_no_robot's comments

> They can't approximate non-continuous functions in general, and there are plenty of non-continuous computable functions.

For a given error I guess. So it's a discussion about how good we can approximate such a function.

The first paragraph leaves such a bad impression for an interesting text and research question.

In some sense, the author contradicts himself by using the model to do something non-trivial that parrots certainly can't do.

I believe that people who eat microwave popcorn have higher PFAS levels as the study suggests.

I'm a bit skeptical about microwave popcorn increases PFAS as the study doesn't really answer this question. People eating microwave popcorn might be different from those who don't eat it and the real source could be something else.

But I'm only a bit skeptical as it sounds plausible that the manufacturers probably use PFAS-contaminated surfaces in the production.

Although it sounds strange but in reinforcement learning there are approaches where actors learn on real world sensory input and then do a couple of rounds of internal simulations to refine the parameters. Then, this is tested against real worlds. I remember that this outperformed algorithms without such simulations.

Also dreaming found in humans and other animals seems like this.