[deleted]
The AI Misinformation Epidemic
151–160 of 286 posts
Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is you "economics background" a BA, by any chance? The people who say economics "became religion" are usually those whose only exposure to economics is through secondhand knowledge (ie. they read about it in media) or took a handful of undergraduate classes. Take a look at what modern economics research looks like [1]. Seriously, read __any__ of those articles and come tell me with a straight face it's not doing norm…
Yup, I'm quite familiar with what modern economics research looks like. My problem with them start when I get to "We now use formal econometric techniques", when they get very limited model with huge amount of assumptions and then draw some conclusions from that. Math checks out. No questions about that (Although there's always stories about reproducibility of results). But after that there's huge gap, when you try t…
> Can we agree that the state of the scientific field is as good as a decisions taken based on the achievements in this field?
Certainly not, or else climate science would still be in thorough disagreement about whether or not there's climate change and/or how anthropogenic it is.
Even if you have massive amounts of evidence pointing to something, if it goes against entrenched interests, nothing is going to be done.
Also, you need to differentiate Krugman the political commentator and Krugman the economist. He's much more of the former these days, posts labeled "wonkish" are generally from the latter. The fault is on him, though, for discrediting himself that way.
Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic
#153Stop calling it "Machine Learning" and "Neural Networks" if you don't want the attention. Do we refer to code or computers as "Machines?". That kind of language is just begging for skynet references. Any sort of elaborate processing network could be called "Neural" or maybe even a fancy linked-list . Something more reasonable like a learning network would keep the sensationalism down. Im sure we can come up with bett…
> Do we refer to code or computers as "Machines?" I do, sometimes. I don't know where I picked up the habit, to be honest, but it might date back to the eighties or nineties. (I know I'm not the only one)
Fair enough, but take anything in computers and replace it with "Machines" and it illustrates the point. ram could be called "Machine memory" or a network could be called a "Machine communication matrix" or in the reverse "Terminator 3: rise of the computers"
Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure I'd consider stuff like the vast majority of human knowledge sitting in my pocket to be less useful than the dishwasher because it has fewer moving parts or most people can afford to fly to be less of an achievement than the megarich can fly 50% faster . Recent decades might a disappointment compared with the millenialist interpretation of exponential curves, but that's only the same as the disappointment a…
> Not sure I'd consider stuff like the vast majority of human knowledge sitting in my pocket to be less useful than the dishwasher because it has fewer moving parts or most people can afford to fly to be less of an achievement than the megarich can fly 50% faster. Not sure anybody told you to consider that. What they did ask you to consider is that technological progress, outside of the digital realm, has been slowed…
The fact that a relatively low income individual has access to a large number of goods and services which were once considered exclusive to the wealthy is a clear indication that technological progress has continued at a steady pace.
While 'slowed down' or 'sped up' are difficult to quantify, the fact that 3 billion human beings have gained access to smartphone technology over the last decade seems to support the idea that technological progress has in fact sped up.
Increasing air transportation speed is a very narrow application of technology and hardly constitutes a meaningful gauge of technical innovation.
Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic
#155Sounds like only a primer, I couldn't find any glimpse at what the problem was though?
It's a series of articles the author is starting. Check back soon.
Um, no. At this point it's some PhD candidate claiming to start a series of blog posts. Do you know how many blog posts there are claiming to have a second part?
Either do something or don't. Don't waste other peoples time publishing your grandiose plans. If you want accountability, tell people you actually know, not the internet.
Not so much his fault really, but I'm a bit disappointed that this got upvoted so much.
Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic
#156This is a very offensive epithet and I demand you rescind it immediately. Just because you have your own language does not mean you can make up hurtful words in English.
We have the same word in Dutch, 'vakidioot', roughly pronounced as 'fuckidiot'.
We will rescind it immediately for you :-)
Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's reasonable to equate 'technologies that existed since the 60s' with 'technologies that are ubiquitous today'. I'm in the bottom 15% of my country (UK) by income and I have access to things like: near-instantaneous hot water at all times, affordable next-day delivery services from a pocket-sized device I carry around with me, international air travel that is affordable for me, efficient fridge/freez…
None of the above are new technologies (last decade(s) or so) developments -- except those that concern computers (which is in accordance to what the parent said).
So, we don't consider efficiency gains and other improvements as being successful new developments?
Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic
#158Stop calling it "Machine Learning" and "Neural Networks" if you don't want the attention. Do we refer to code or computers as "Machines?". That kind of language is just begging for skynet references. Any sort of elaborate processing network could be called "Neural" or maybe even a fancy linked-list . Something more reasonable like a learning network would keep the sensationalism down. Im sure we can come up with bett…
With the prevalence of VMs (virtual machines), I don't think it's a stretch to call physical computers "machines". Granted, I usually hear the term "computer" or "box" used instead. Besides that moot point, I completely agree with you.
Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic
#159Stop calling it "Machine Learning" and "Neural Networks" if you don't want the attention. Do we refer to code or computers as "Machines?". That kind of language is just begging for skynet references. Any sort of elaborate processing network could be called "Neural" or maybe even a fancy linked-list . Something more reasonable like a learning network would keep the sensationalism down. Im sure we can come up with bett…
How about "statistical inference"? This is not an uncommon term for ML techniques in the statistical community.
Re: The AI Misinformation Epidemic
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, I'm quite familiar with what modern economics research looks like. My problem with them start when I get to "We now use formal econometric techniques", when they get very limited model with huge amount of assumptions and then draw some conclusions from that. Math checks out. No questions about that (Although there's always stories about reproducibility of results). But after that there's huge gap, when you try t…
> Can we agree that the state of the scientific field is as good as a decisions taken based on the achievements in this field? Certainly not, or else climate science would still be in thorough disagreement about whether or not there's climate change and/or how anthropogenic it is. Even if you have massive amounts of evidence pointing to something, if it goes against entrenched interests, nothing is going to be done.…
> Certainly not, or else climate science would still be in thorough disagreement
Looking at Europe - I see the decisions, policies and agreement. Looking at USA I see conscious decision to ignore the science predictions when it suits some political goals in short term and not to ignore when it's vital - like when planning military strategy in Middle East.
So I think my point still stands.