PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

On the subject of summaries/articles written by AI or that look like they have. I found this while looking for something else(wasn't there a journalist attempting to guilt trip City fans into pressuring the ownership, to accept UEFA's verdict, or am I misremembering?):

‘Best run club in the world’: Manchester City fans and the legitimation of sportswashing?'

A research article by university students(majority Irish), for the International Review for the Sociology of Sport. What career are they likely pursuing? Journalism? That looks like they've mostly let chatgpt or some version of grok write it all for them. Scraping data from City fan forums(mostly here but they wont say).

I haven't read it but I skim-read it, thought it might get a laugh from some on here.

'They call United fans names!' , 'They criticise Journalists for misinformation and call them names too!'.

Frequent quotes from Delaney. They can't seem to distinguish the difference between ADUG and the Abu Dhabi government from the looks of it either.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
What's the rationale for splitting the case into two hearings then? If there is no appeal after the liability judgment, why split it in the first place? They could have just cracked on and determined the sanction in a single hearing?
Click to expand...
With so many charges it is difficult to combine the 2. The 2 sides would have make submissions on a range of scenarios. Not really practical without weeks more of the trial. This way the parties know what the sanction hearing will punish (if anything), they can have a 2 week sanction hearing where mitigating and aggravating factors are argued and then a few months later we will get the decision on the sanction.

And then the whole thing can be appealed in one appeal.
 
Len Rum said:
Have I understood you correctly?

1. City can appeal ANY IC decision under Rule W to the Appeal Board.
2.The Rule W appeal decision can be appealed under Rule X to an external body I.e. in the High Court or another outside forum.

Why is an appeal under Rule X unlikely to be successful? For example time limits for bringing challenges can be a subjective issue.
Click to expand...
No. Rule W appeal is to an Appeal Board.
Then Rule X appeal of a Rule W Appeal is to a Rule X Appeal panel.
Only way things go to the High Court is a dispute about the application of Rule X or the other rules. Not to the High Court to substantively decide the facts.

There has been no complaint about the process. A complaint at the end of a finding of a proven case, is not likely to succeed.
 
Damocles said:
No it isn't.

The algorithm predicts word usage through higher dimensional space training with additional weighting. The values given in the vector weren't supposed to be reality but illustrative. The "equations" given are trying to explain how the initial change from randomness to movement in that space occurs. This really is how they function.

You could argue that there so much processing after the movement in 1.3k dimensional space that it isn't illustrative of the final outcome and I'd agree, but calling it wrong seems extremely harsh. It tried to describe something specific and it did it without further context.
Click to expand...
like I said the maths misses out recursion, it's wrong
 
BerkshireBlue said:
like I said the maths misses out recursion, it's wrong
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand. The math shown is the calculation on how models pick words, from a large scale, broad view. It doesn't use recursive functions as far as I'm aware as the attention mechanism uses parallel computation where each weight is updated in "real time"
 
Damocles said:
I'm not sure I understand. The math shown is the calculation on how models pick words, from a large scale, broad view. It doesn't use recursive functions as far as I'm aware as the attention mechanism uses parallel computation where each weight is updated in "real time"
Click to expand...
maths.
 
Damocles said:
It's a posh version of an auto predictor that your phone keyboard uses. It doesn't understand words or questions. It just tells you the statistically most likely word to come after this one, in the context of the sentence. There is no knowledge, no comprehension, no understanding.

I'll let it explain:



ChatGPT gave those answers because it used Bluemoon in its training data and that's what people on Bluemoon said, essentially.

Here's how it works for all you math fans.
Click to expand...
Was gonna say the exact same thing word for word.
 
Damocles said:
I'm not sure I understand. The math shown is the calculation on how models pick words, from a large scale, broad view. It doesn't use recursive functions as far as I'm aware as the attention mechanism uses parallel computation where each weight is updated in "real time"
Click to expand...
Maths. Deserves repeating, it’s such an abomination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top