41–50 of 71 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still, this is not "AI" in the traditional sense of the phrase. Asking a bunch of humans and then deciding an outcome is not AI.
Well, I think it's pretty clearly an "emergent intelligence" that is distinct from any of the individuals' unique intelligence. In other words, whose intelligence is being represented by the swarm?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also the issue of the full suite of predictions, if these were the only predictions made then it's impressive, but if they made lots of predictions then some of their predictions coming true may be no better than chance.
They also predicted which managers would win the MVP awards, and which players would win the CY YOUNG awards but those don't get announced for 2 weeks.
This reminds me of one of the chapters from "How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking" by Jordan Ellenberg (highly recommended). He describes how "stock brokers" would send out a "free stock prediction" to thousands of email addresses. The prediction would be a simple up/down prediction for a specific stock. The prediction was randomly chosen. But these "brokers" would send an equal number of up and do…
If anyone is interested, this is known as p-hacking in statistics ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging ), and works in a similar way. For instance, you have a statistical population of one hundred men and one hundred women: you collect as much data as possible about them - as many features as possible, actually - until you find something which happens to be statistically significant for your group (eg. salt…
'Salt consumption can increase the risk of liver consumption for middle-aged males of African descent'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except this was a prediction that was done formally for the Boston Globe, at their request. You can see their article about it here: https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2016/10/04/group-g...
Still, this is not "AI" in the traditional sense of the phrase. Asking a bunch of humans and then deciding an outcome is not AI.
Nothing about this seems to add up. They claim they made the prediction in early July, but link to a newspaper article dated 4 August that indicates the predictions were made just one day earlier. They picked the team with the best record all season long to win the championship. They got one of the division winners wrong. Just publishing the current favorites from MLB.com's probability page [0] as of 3 August would h…
According to the article: "A group of Boston Globe readers accurately predicted nine of baseball’s 10 playoff teams after participating in a 30-minute online experiment using Unanimous A.I.’s Swarm Intelligence on Aug. 3." So they don't credit the AI as much as the readers. I agree it is all fishy. Someone trying to pump up the value of their company.
So, the Boston Globe provided the people and provided the questions... they formed a Swarm Intelligence, and made the predictions.
The Boston Globe did this to see if the swarm intelligence could make strong picks. It did.
This reminds me of one of the chapters from "How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking" by Jordan Ellenberg (highly recommended). He describes how "stock brokers" would send out a "free stock prediction" to thousands of email addresses. The prediction would be a simple up/down prediction for a specific stock. The prediction was randomly chosen. But these "brokers" would send an equal number of up and do…
Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.2825
And here's a slightly more exciting description of a talk one of the authors gave on that topic at UMass Amherst last year:
https://www.physics.umass.edu/seminars/statistics-of-basketb...
EDIT: I was too stupid to realize that the paper linked above actually supports the parent's opinion, i.e. the idea that successful predictions are statistical artifacts, contrary to what I was thinking earlier.
This reminds me of one of the chapters from "How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking" by Jordan Ellenberg (highly recommended). He describes how "stock brokers" would send out a "free stock prediction" to thousands of email addresses. The prediction would be a simple up/down prediction for a specific stock. The prediction was randomly chosen. But these "brokers" would send an equal number of up and do…
http://www.newsweek.com/artificial-intelligence-turns-20-110...
This reminds me of one of the chapters from "How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking" by Jordan Ellenberg (highly recommended). He describes how "stock brokers" would send out a "free stock prediction" to thousands of email addresses. The prediction would be a simple up/down prediction for a specific stock. The prediction was randomly chosen. But these "brokers" would send an equal number of up and do…
(no seriously, great comment)
This reminds me of one of the chapters from "How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking" by Jordan Ellenberg (highly recommended). He describes how "stock brokers" would send out a "free stock prediction" to thousands of email addresses. The prediction would be a simple up/down prediction for a specific stock. The prediction was randomly chosen. But these "brokers" would send an equal number of up and do…
1. They made the predictions well before hand and released them to the public.
2. As the article stated, they also did the same thing with Hockey, Derby, and Academy Awards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the article: "A group of Boston Globe readers accurately predicted nine of baseball’s 10 playoff teams after participating in a 30-minute online experiment using Unanimous A.I.’s Swarm Intelligence on Aug. 3." So they don't credit the AI as much as the readers. I agree it is all fishy. Someone trying to pump up the value of their company.
Actually, that's how a Swarm Intelligence works - it's a real-time system that connects LIVE PEOPLE using swarming algorithms. So, the Boston Globe provided the people and provided the questions... they formed a Swarm Intelligence, and made the predictions. The Boston Globe did this to see if the swarm intelligence could make strong picks. It did.
As I pointed out in a different post, this is an update of the established technique of delta polling. Delta polling is useful, and an automated way of doing it can help if find even more uses for a lower cost. I see the value here. But, it isn't AI, and the system isn't doing the assessment. It is not intelligence.