What's up with all the AI generated responses on that page?
AI competition, managed BY AI , discussed AI agents and commented by AI users.
All paid by our pensions.
Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
181–190 of 338 posts
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#182AI is useful. But the amount of people that are simply offloading all of their thinking to AI and blindly accepting the answer is absurd. Kaggle is most likely using ai to assess the submissions and are not using any common sense by blindly accepting the results.
[flagged]
I am a shill for saying AI is useful, but people use it too much? I am not morally opposed to shilling, but I think that isn't a very effective shill.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#183Flagged, editorialized title
That's fair and your good right. However know that my frustrations stems from spending two and a half days feeling like in the story of the emperors new clothes digging into this shit that was made king by a number of employees of one of the most prestigious AI labs.
Then write a blog post and make your point there, not in the title of the submission.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#184I think there is a saying about having a million monkeys with typewriters... or something of that sort.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#185[dead]
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the exception of _one_ company that I worked at, pretty much every[0] company was a struggle between engineering and management. Engineering wants to get the software correct, and management wants to fire-hose features into the market. Most of the time (so more than half, at least), management tends to have a compulsion to mindlessly imitate what other companies/competitors are doing, usually without prioritizat…
Management is just responding to idiot end-users. I have been on plenty of sales calls where customers ask if features X,Y,Z are available, knowing that there’s a 99% chance they’ll never need them, but they ask anyway just because they’ve heard that someone else used a feature like that at some point in the past. If it’s not, they just assume the software is inferior.
And in B2B or B2G you have customers with checklists of features they don't actually need because the person who wrote the checklist is friends with or paid by a particular supplier, or just operating on old information.
That's how you get Windows subsystem for POSIX. Someone in the government had a checklist saying they'd only buy a POSIX compliant operating system, so Microsoft made one. Amusingly, Linux isn't (mostly because who would pay for that certification?)
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the exception of _one_ company that I worked at, pretty much every[0] company was a struggle between engineering and management. Engineering wants to get the software correct, and management wants to fire-hose features into the market. Most of the time (so more than half, at least), management tends to have a compulsion to mindlessly imitate what other companies/competitors are doing, usually without prioritizat…
> It very frequently feels like management is making strategic decisions after snorting a long line of social-media-psychosis and TED talks. It is remarkable that investors have any faith in such founders/entrepreneurs at all. My guess is the causality is usually * the managers are pursuing things because their investors (/government ministries) hinted it was the future after snorting a line of "TED talks" and "socia…
Decision trees are one of the oldest forms of AI! There are even algorithms to automatically form decision trees, though you don't need ML to have AI.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#188AI is useful. But the amount of people that are simply offloading all of their thinking to AI and blindly accepting the answer is absurd. Kaggle is most likely using ai to assess the submissions and are not using any common sense by blindly accepting the results.
People love offloading their thinking. They offload to tv reporters, to religions to political parties.. Offloading to AI sounds a lot better IMO.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#189AI is useful. But the amount of people that are simply offloading all of their thinking to AI and blindly accepting the answer is absurd. Kaggle is most likely using ai to assess the submissions and are not using any common sense by blindly accepting the results.
I think we need to address the underlying causes of people outsourcing their thinking like that. And a big contribution is “move fast.” No one has time to read, process, and think, because The Powers That Be (capital) want their results now.
> I think we need to address the underlying causes of people outsourcing their thinking like
Most people take the easy way out most of the time. Not that complicated.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we need to address the underlying causes of people outsourcing their thinking like that. And a big contribution is “move fast.” No one has time to read, process, and think, because The Powers That Be (capital) want their results now.
There is also the "You aren't paid to think, you are paid to do exactly what I tell you, nothing more or less!" school of management. I'm not sure how prevalent this attitude is now but it was very common in the 90s and 2000s. The AI and the bosses that want you to use it all speak from positions of authority and confidence. That's their right, granted to them by their position. You don't speak that way because as a…
This way of thinking is absolutely still around. I think AI may actually be making it worse. Now managers have it to validate their ideas and they don't think they have to listen to feedback from subordinates because some AI agrees with them.