51–60 of 76 posts
AI winter will be caused, once again, by the failure of the technology to do what the researchers and practitioners claim it can do. This time, tragically, with fatalities.
‘The Gell-Mann amnesia effect is a theoretical psychological phenomenon, the term itself being coined by author, film producer and academic Michael Crichton after discussions with Nobel-Prize winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann. Originally described in Crichton's "Why Speculate?" speech, the Gell-Mann amnesia effect labels a commonly observed problem in modern media, where one will believe everything they read from a…
I'm not sure it's true though. Look at any polls about trust in the media. It's been falling for a long time. People are becoming aware that journalists are systematically unreliable and it's having an impact.
However, even if I think someone is lying 99.99% of the time when they say a Tiger in a Top hat is behind the door that still raises the odds immensely.
‘The Gell-Mann amnesia effect is a theoretical psychological phenomenon, the term itself being coined by author, film producer and academic Michael Crichton after discussions with Nobel-Prize winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann. Originally described in Crichton's "Why Speculate?" speech, the Gell-Mann amnesia effect labels a commonly observed problem in modern media, where one will believe everything they read from a…
I'm not sure it's true though. Look at any polls about trust in the media. It's been falling for a long time. People are becoming aware that journalists are systematically unreliable and it's having an impact.
It's rather disingenuous of AI researchers to complain of overhype when they are the ones claiming that their tech should be used to drive cars and hence, as we've seen, kill people. AI winter will be caused, once again, by the failure of the technology to do what the researchers and practitioners claim it can do. This time, tragically, with fatalities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure it's true though. Look at any polls about trust in the media. It's been falling for a long time. People are becoming aware that journalists are systematically unreliable and it's having an impact.
And unfortunately the alternative people have found is random hearsay on the web. The dieticians lost our trust and now we're just eating junk food instead.
Most people were't exactly reading [insert name of reputable publication] for their daily news, it was low quality tabloids with a helping of TV and radio pundits.
It's rather disingenuous of AI researchers to complain of overhype when they are the ones claiming that their tech should be used to drive cars and hence, as we've seen, kill people. AI winter will be caused, once again, by the failure of the technology to do what the researchers and practitioners claim it can do. This time, tragically, with fatalities.
It seems reasonable enough to argue both that 1. AI should take over certain human roles like driving, which causes millions of fatalities due to human error, and 2. it's silly to frame every new step in AI as part of a grand road to SkyNet. The first is proposing AI for a discrete task, the second is extending this way way out to consciousness or something.
This sort of sensationalism, in general, is so completely ingrained into reporting that it's hard to separate from journalism itself. It's part of the journalistic style, an inevitability of the medium. We see an article, click a link, by a paper, but we are never committing to more than a second or two of attention at a time. The headline makes you read the byline. The byline gets you reading the second sentence. At…
This sort of sensationalism, in general, is so completely ingrained into reporting that it's hard to separate from journalism itself. It's part of the journalistic style, an inevitability of the medium. We see an article, click a link, by a paper, but we are never committing to more than a second or two of attention at a time. The headline makes you read the byline. The byline gets you reading the second sentence. At…
Important details front loaded into the first paragraph of a newspaper. Meandering narrative throughout the rest.
That was in 1996. There’s just more of that shallow content in our faces now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But most people don't want that, sadly. Instant mass media has shown us that people want to consume media about other real people -- that they admire in some fashion -- going through life. Not reporting, explanation, facts, or science. So reporters have responded with tweets and instant feedback on anything that's happening. Many times even when nothing is happening, they know they have to put out some kind of person…
Oh I don't know... there are wants and there are wants. I wouldn't put it down to some moral failing of humanity. The problem is more of a systemic one than a fundamental one.. I think. The way we use our phones/computers, our time and such... it adds up to a system where decisions are instant and reflexive. It adds up to a medium, with all its trappings.