Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

kaggle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 338 posts

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#261

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

kyle-rb wrote: post #257
erikerikson wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those algorithms were only called machine learning and it's the opposite. Before the marketers got ahold of it we reserved AI for the actually intelligent, sentient, full strength vision of intelligent systems. We now talk about general AIs and A[Super]Is.

The term AGI was coined almost 30 years ago; is that when the marketers got ahold of it?

I would say IBM poisoned the well with the term AI. Watson was probably the biggest inflection point, but there was stuff earlier too.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#262

Post by ajsnigrutin »

ecshafer wrote: post #31

AI 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.

It's easy... you just tell it what you want, and it gives you the answer, especially if you know very little about the topic itself.

The problem is, when you know the topic well, and it's giving you bad/wrong answers, because you know the topic enough to notice it.

Gell-Mann AI effect in action

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#263

Post by twerkmeister »

inigyou wrote: post #236
twerkmeister wrote: post #231

Please note this Post was just renamed without my involvement from: Blatant AI slop just won a 25K USD Deepmind Kaggle Grand Prize into "Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluate process and selection of winners"

That's because HN doesn't allow editorialised titles, which means injecting your own opinion into the title. The author of the linked article's opinion is still allowed. If you wanted to give your own title you would have to write the article. Even though your title was objectively more correct and useful than the one it's been renamed to.

I updated my post title to reflect the original title and send a mail to the mods to restore the original title. Lets see. I was not aware of the editorialized title rule otherwise I had updated my post before linking it here.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#264

Post by regularfry »

rrvsh wrote: post #247
erikerikson wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those algorithms were only called machine learning and it's the opposite. Before the marketers got ahold of it we reserved AI for the actually intelligent, sentient, full strength vision of intelligent systems. We now talk about general AIs and A[Super]Is.

That's not true. AI was widely used to refer to the decision systems and state machines that produced NPC behaviour in video games, and I'm sure many other things than just science fiction

Parsing used to be "AI". If you look at proceedings of old AI conferences you get this impression that anything interesting you might program a computer to do has passed through the field at some point.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#265

Post by regularfry »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #71
rapidaneurism wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the slop PRs come from your super?

People don’t typically have to approve and submit their super’s work IME so I’m curious what you mean. If they write you unclear slop emails then constantly bother them for clarification until they fix it.

I get my team to review my code, AI generated or not. Goes through the same process as anything they produce. Two pairs of eyeballs on everything.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#266

Post by regularfry »

bartlebone wrote: post #88
snickerbockers wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've had about a century now of science-fiction literature hyping up AI as a higher intelligence that is based solely on some ill-defined yet universal system of "logic" and is therefore not prone to human flaws such as pride, hate, envy, lust, etc. Now it has become extremely apparent that was always an unsubstantiated assumption but its too late because there are billions of people primed to never question the mac…

In Dune we never learned what exactly went down in the butlerian jihad. Perhaps it was worse than idiocracy and the galaxy became monumentally stupid for an eon or two, rather than a bloodthirsty Terminator scenario.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune:_The_Butlerian_Jihad

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#267

Post by redsocksfan45 »

snickerbockers wrote: post #35
ablation wrote: post #15

"I think you just need to accept the results of the competition. The winning submissions clearly provide value and had a lot of effort invested in them. I'm not really worried about a few inconsistencies or mistakes if the value is still there. Did you think another submission deserved to win over these?" That comment is gold. Yeah, I'm not worried about hallucinated slop, just accept it was the winner folks.

We've had about a century now of science-fiction literature hyping up AI as a higher intelligence that is based solely on some ill-defined yet universal system of "logic" and is therefore not prone to human flaws such as pride, hate, envy, lust, etc. Now it has become extremely apparent that was always an unsubstantiated assumption but its too late because there are billions of people primed to never question the mac…

[dead]

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#268

Post by inigyou »

ptx wrote: post #240
inigyou wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (mos…

Building on standards like POSIX prevents vendor lock-in, which is beneficial in the long run because it prevents the vendor from holding you hostage once you start relying on the system. It's a sensible requirement. Microsoft's deliberately useless POSIX support is a result of Microsoft acting in bad faith and sabotaging the efforts, as usual, because the lock-in is what they want. Just like they did with OpenDocume…

It's also because POSIX is completely useless.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#269

Post by wrs »

sublimefire wrote: post #227

Went through the comments here and there and one thing to note is that there was a question about who do you think should have won instead. This is a good question because it is possible that all submissions were like this or there were ones that looked just worse. It would be quite useful to know who came close as well in this case. If you knew which submissions were good you could have a process to revoke the prize…

Assuming this description is accurate, if they were all like this then none of them should have won. They should have all been disqualified and the organizers should have looked at themselves in a mirror for a long time.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#270

Post by prox »

fn-mote wrote: post #59
prox wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your perspective is a short arc. “Look what I can do now and look it made me way more productive.” I have no doubt it is true, you are on the up right now. However thinking of the long arc is important to, even though it has no consequence for you right now. AI is a force multiplayer and scarily dangerous in the wrong hands. We can already see by these discussions how uncertain things are. Just food for thought.

> AI is a force multiplayer and scarily dangerous in the wrong hands You have to spell this out a lot more if you want to have credibility. I’m not seeing anything in discussed here that seems scary.

I think the sibling comment shares some good examples. Maybe future drone armies is another one.

That you don’t see anything scary that’s your prerogative of course.

Post reply on HN