101–110 of 216 posts
"More accurate forecasts of risks of extreme weather can help officials safeguard more lives, avert damage, and save money," DeepMind said. Did the DeepMind AI say this?
...why else do you think it's important to predict hurricane paths and tornado spawning storms and flooding rains and heat waves further ahead of time?
This is great from a practical standpoint (being able to predict weather), but does it actually improve our understanding of the weather, or WHY those predictions are better? That is my issue with some of these AI advances. With these, we won't have actually gotten better at understanding the weather patterns, since it's all just a bunch of weights which nobody really understands.
In short those patterns are only useful because of AI.
This is great from a practical standpoint (being able to predict weather), but does it actually improve our understanding of the weather, or WHY those predictions are better? That is my issue with some of these AI advances. With these, we won't have actually gotten better at understanding the weather patterns, since it's all just a bunch of weights which nobody really understands.
in contrast to "we cannot make better predictions on this input data than what we're doing now"
This is great from a practical standpoint (being able to predict weather), but does it actually improve our understanding of the weather, or WHY those predictions are better? That is my issue with some of these AI advances. With these, we won't have actually gotten better at understanding the weather patterns, since it's all just a bunch of weights which nobody really understands.
One could make the argument: hey... fifty years ago everyone knew intricately how a car worked because you had to. It broke down so often, you needed to be able to repair it yourself on the side of the road. Now people just press a button and if it doesn't work you have the 'shop' take care of it for you. AI advancement will be no different. Problem is: the 'shop' today is still humans who designed and built the cars and know how a car works and how to repair one. AI advancement can lead to eventually no one knowing anything as models get so sophisticated we just don't know why A leads to Z.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally different constraints. It’s like saying Nobel prize winning physicists can’t be trusted because they get basic arithmetic wrong Gemini is fast food - it’s not supposed to be the best.
Your analogy doesn't make sense. Nobel winning physicists can definitely perform arithmetic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would guess that everyday they're comparing the current weather against the forecast from 15 days ago. Not a lot of data points to be sure, but perhaps enough to have confidence of very high accuracy.
I don't think that's necessary. You can do a backtest for any point in the past, as long as you only use the data that was available until 15 days before the day being predicted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A hard science Nobel is very different from the peace prize, obviously.
> obviously It's not obvious to me. Care to elaborate? The only one that strikes me as "obviously" different is the Nobel prize that isn't really a Nobel prize, the one for economics.
This is great from a practical standpoint (being able to predict weather), but does it actually improve our understanding of the weather, or WHY those predictions are better? That is my issue with some of these AI advances. With these, we won't have actually gotten better at understanding the weather patterns, since it's all just a bunch of weights which nobody really understands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally different constraints. It’s like saying Nobel prize winning physicists can’t be trusted because they get basic arithmetic wrong Gemini is fast food - it’s not supposed to be the best.
A Nobel physicist that couldn't do basic arithmetic would definitely raise my eyebrows, but even taking your analogy at face value Gemini was not marketed as fast food slop. Google can't be trusted to hype products in a reliable way, regardless of their technical details.
This is great from a practical standpoint (being able to predict weather), but does it actually improve our understanding of the weather, or WHY those predictions are better? That is my issue with some of these AI advances. With these, we won't have actually gotten better at understanding the weather patterns, since it's all just a bunch of weights which nobody really understands.