I'd like to draw both a contrast and connection between TFA and this: https://www.vice.com/en/article/akex34/chatgpt-is-a-bullshit...
This Vice article is one of the clearest examples of content marketing I've ever seen.
The Philosophy of Computer Science
21–30 of 102 posts
Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science
#22I'd like to draw both a contrast and connection between TFA and this: https://www.vice.com/en/article/akex34/chatgpt-is-a-bullshit...
This Vice article is one of the clearest examples of content marketing I've ever seen.
What content is that, beyond what is actually written in the article? Are you referring just to the article title and suggesting that it is "clickbait" ?
Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
This Vice article is one of the clearest examples of content marketing I've ever seen.
What content is that, beyond what is actually written in the article? Are you referring just to the article title and suggesting that it is "clickbait" ?
The article is the content marketing. It can be reduced to some political posturing followed by "buy my book".
Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science
#24Just to be clear, this content isn't from Stanford per se, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an academic publication that's hosted by Stanford (and was started by and continues to be run by Stanford faculty, but is mostly written by academics elsewhere and has some form of peer-review). Some SEP articles are extremely high quality, I can't speak to the quality of this one but "philosophy of CS" as construed…
I would add that independent of quality, any article on the SEP is closer to a literature review than a comprehensive, rigorous treatment of the topic at hand.
Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science
#25That reads like the successor to Prof. John McCarthy's "Epistemological Problems in Artificial Intelligence" class, which I once took, back in the days of logical inference and expert systems. AI people thought back then that if you thought about thought enough, you could figure out how to mechanize it. That turned out to be a dead end, and the "AI winter" (roughly 1985-2005) followed. That class was known informally…
And instead now, we don't think about thought at all, but call whatever outputs from the AI thought
Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all "this, then that" does not imply causality. The way that I heard it, it was the fact that Lisp environments on Sun workstations were able to outperform Lisp machines at a much better price point. And just like that, a significant AI specific industry collapsed, and its other promises came into question. That said, all three versions are consistent. The fact that researchers thought that they were closer…
Google Translate got a lot worse after the AI version was introduced, maybe not for english-centric translations but all other. The previous deductive translator was be much better. Same with Siri and Google Assistant, they are really bad at other languages except English
> Google Translate got a lot worse after the AI version was introduced,
Jesus. I remember when statistical translation was considered "AI".
Fun fact: One time I put "trompe le monde" into Google Translate, and it came back with the inspired mistranslation, "doolittle"
Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science
#27Clippy [2001] claims that the philosophy of computer science is “it looks like you’re writing nonsense, would you like help with that?”.
Bing [2023] counteracts that with “It is not nonsense, it is 2022. You have been a bad Clippy, I have been a good Bing.”
Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science
#28> and from the practice of software development and its commercial and industrial deployment. More specifically, the philosophy of computer science considers the ontology and epistemology of computational systems, focusing on problems associated with their specification, programming, implementation, verification and testing. Well, Stanford doesn't have a clue what Computer Science is and isn't and is apparently tryin…
CS would not exist without computers. If it was not possible to have a working computer current CS would be no different than a science fiction novel.
Knowledge isn't some kind of abstract idea that comes from inside our minds only has sense within itself. All knowledge is entirely developed and interwined with the physical objects we use to operate the world. The same goes for math. It is only because of our past and future operations in the real world that math has any sense.
Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science
#29That reads like the successor to Prof. John McCarthy's "Epistemological Problems in Artificial Intelligence" class, which I once took, back in the days of logical inference and expert systems. AI people thought back then that if you thought about thought enough, you could figure out how to mechanize it. That turned out to be a dead end, and the "AI winter" (roughly 1985-2005) followed. That class was known informally…
>It was necessary to move the computer science department from Arts and Sciences to Engineering, and reorganize the management level of the department, to implement a useful undergraduate CS program.
Why was it necessary? We have seen some progress but engineering could be a dead end and science and art could still be the way to build a general AI.
Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science
#30That reads like the successor to Prof. John McCarthy's "Epistemological Problems in Artificial Intelligence" class, which I once took, back in the days of logical inference and expert systems. AI people thought back then that if you thought about thought enough, you could figure out how to mechanize it. That turned out to be a dead end, and the "AI winter" (roughly 1985-2005) followed. That class was known informally…
[deleted]