AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 159
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
)))
having enough information, it is possible to interpret it. the possibility of interpreting it is a question of quantitative sufficiency of information. this is how many records in unknown languages have been deciphered, for example. this is how decryption machines work (remember the famous Enigma).
radio espionage would be impossible according to your logic. in fact, information technology would not be possible at all.
you can interpret data, you can't interpret information, because it is obtained through the process of interpretation.
these are subtle things that you just have to google and realise.
Data is often referred to as information, yes, but it's different.
Here I need to clarify my position: I do not consider humans to be the only creators and processors of information. For example, a dog has much more specific information about the environment than a human. So what, a human can't smell an odour, so it doesn't exist? Or simply the human is not aware of the odour, but their pet is aware and wants to get to the source of the odour at all costs (processing information).
data can be interpreted, information cannot be interpreted because it is obtained through the process of interpretation
these are subtle things that you just have to google and realise.
Data is often referred to as information, yes, but it's different.
Well, then you're not googling well enough)))))
you passed information in Chinese to a Chinese person, the Chinese person passed information in Vietnamese to a Vietnamese person, and the Vietnamese person passed the same information back to you in Russian. the information was encoded in three different ways and is in the air, each of you does not know at least one of the encodings, but the information has not gone anywhere - it is still in the waves.
as you can see, information in the form of data and back has been three times, whether it is data or information does not play any role, the same information can be considered as data, it depends on the point of view.
Here I need to clarify my position: I do not consider humans to be the sole creator and processor of information. For example, a dog has much more specific information about its environment than a human. So does the human not smelling an odour mean it doesn't exist? Or simply the human is not aware of the odour, but their pet is aware and wants to get to the source of the odour at all costs (processing information).
The dog knows about the other two hundred dogs that have been passing by for a week or more, who they have mated with and what they have eaten. a huge amount of information. the numbers could be wrong but it's something like this.
Well, then you're not googling well enough.)
you transmitted information in Chinese to a Chinese person, the Chinese person transmitted information in Vietnamese to a Vietnamese person, and the Vietnamese person transmitted the same information back to you in Russian. the information was encoded in three different ways and is in the air, each of you does not know at least one of the encodings, but the information has not gone anywhere - it is still in the waves.
as you can see, information in the form of data and back has been three times, whether it is data or information does not play any role, the same information can be considered as data, it depends on the point of view.
I don't know, it's kind of a slippery issue, I agree with that definition for now.
my understanding is broader and extends to physical processes too.
I understand information as the result of data processing or the result of one system influencing another.
An encoder encodes information into data, a decoder decodes. They have a key without which the information is meaningless or non-existent even given that it is already encoded. Of course, it is possible to find the key, but it is the same as being able to interpret the data and get the information.Here I need to clarify my position: I do not consider humans to be the sole creator and processor of information. For example, a dog has much more specific information about its environment than a human. So does the human not smelling an odour mean it doesn't exist? Or simply the human doesn't know about the odour, but his pet does and wants to get to the source of the odour at all costs (processes the information).
I don't know, it's kind of a slippery issue, I agree with that definition so far
what is written there does not contradict what I said. the question "is it data or is it already information" is subjective and depends on the point of view. for some people it is still data and for others it is already information. the term "data" makes sense only in describing the process of information processing: data - processing - information, and nothing else, and in all other cases there is no difference between data and information, they are the same thing.
I don't know, it's kind of a slippery issue, I agree with that definition so far
My understanding is broader and extends to physical processes, too.
I understand information as the result of data processing or the result of one system influencing another.
An encoder encodes information into data, a decoder decodes. They have a key without which the information is meaningless or non-existent even given that it is already encoded. Of course, the key can be picked up, but that's the same as being able to interpret the data and get the information.what you say out loud is data, what the interlocutor receives by interpreting data is information, he passes information to the next interlocutor, for the next interlocutor it is also data and then information. right?
what is the point of introducing the data/information division when dealing with the notion of "information"?))))))
my understanding is broader and extends to physical processes, too.
I understand information as the result of data processing or the result of the impact of one system on another.
This already seems like wishful thinking, of course information is an interpretation of data. Data are facts or signals that can be measured, observed or recorded. Information is the meaning or significance we give to data depending on our knowledge, experience and purpose. For example, the number 42 can be thought of as data that can be stored in a computer or recorded on paper. But for different people or for different contexts, this number may have different meaning or information. It might be a simple number to a mathematician, the answer to a basic question about life, the universe and everything else to a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy fan, or a random number to someone else.
Thus, information is not simply the interpretation of data, but rather the complex and subjective process of giving meaning to data.
what you say out loud is data, what the interlocutor gets by interpreting the data is information, he passes the information to the next interlocutor, for the next interlocutor it is also data and then information. right?
what is the point of introducing the data/information distinction when dealing with the notion of "information"?))))))