Oh wow, it was not just some guy publishing fradulent papers in fradulent journals that nobody reads or cites. He had giant impact, was cited tens of thousands of times!
Fraud, so much fraud
611–620 of 868 posts
Re: Fraud, so much fraud
#612[dead]
Re: Fraud, so much fraud
#613Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neural networks are much closer to modeling a brain than other approaches to AI, ie symbolic reasoning. There will always be differences (it's machine, not meat), but it's fair to say the approach is at least "brain like". Your position sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Sorry if it came across as non-falsifiable, that was not the intent. Neural networks do not directly encode high-level reasoning and logic, yes. But in the spectrum of “does this model the actual functioning of an animal/human brain”, they lack both a 1st order model of how biological neurons and neural chemistry behaves, but also lack anything like the multiple levels of structural specialization present in nervous…
That's true, but we also don't know that the multiple levels of structural specialization are necessary to produce "approximately human" intelligence.
Let's say two alien beings landed on earth today and want you to settle a bet. They both look weird in different ways but they seem to talk alike. One of them says "I'm intelligent, that other frood is fake. His brain doesn't have hypersynaptic gibblators!" The other says "No, I'm the intelligent one, the other frood's brain doesn't have floozium subnarblots!"
Who cares? Intelligence is that which acts intelligent. That's the point of the Turing test, and why I think it's still relevant.
Re: Fraud, so much fraud
#614Earlier quoted context omitted.
This happened all day long during Covid. The answer was never “we don’t know yet” which was at least honest but instead it was always “just trust us”. Exactly like i use to hear from preachers growing up.
The difference between public health and basic research. To stop an epidemic in flight one has to go with ones best guess and that saves lives so they do it.
We weren't told it was the best guess to save lives. We were told it was the science, and this science was very fast to adapt to alarmist narratives while being incredibly slow (sometimes taking years) to adapt to reality.
And that's before you take into account things like BLM rallies being encouraged during COVID while less politically correct gatherings were banned or decried as "super spreader events." [1]
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea...
Re: Fraud, so much fraud
#615Earlier quoted context omitted.
> TMS is magnetic, not EM (the coil generates a magnetic field, which induces localized currents in the body ME? the coil generates an M which induces localized E in the body as shown by localized currents? (which produce some more M, but only just enough)
I can't parse what you are saying, but there's a difference between EM radiation and a magnetic field (and the resulting locally induced currents). Think in terms of an MRI machine: it puts you in a giant magnet (causing the various nuclear spins to align with the field) and then sends a bunch of EM radiation (radiofrequency). The former is a magnetic field, not EM radiation.
it's all E x B, just different functions for E and B
Re: Fraud, so much fraud
#616Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand the standard of modeling you seem to assume. Modeling a human brain, a cephalopod brain and a corvid brain aren’t even mutually exclusive if your model is abstract enough. When I say „a neural network models a human brain“, I’m talking about the high level concept, not the specific structure of a human brain compared to other brains. You could also say that it models a dogs brain if you wanted to.…
I think a lot of people don't abstract their brain model when they say "models a human brain", or they'd say "models biological intelligence", etc. Specifically, I don't think there are any human traits in LLMs other than having mostly been trained on human outputs. They see tokens and predict tokens; very different sensorium from humans. There aren't any specific corvid or cephalopod traits either afaik. Biological…
How about "hallucinations"? They are exactly what students produce during exams when they don't exactly know the subject: plausible sounding but internally incoherent sentences.
Re: Fraud, so much fraud
#617It’s time that someone starts a thing similar in appearance to GitHub, but for science (datasets, images, calculations, scripts) and then, if journals required it, it just might get traction and make fraud science easy to spot. Edit: found this article which says everything I wanted to say but couldn’t put into words. https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/we-need-a-github-for-ac... Add another aspect here that LaTeX i…
> Add another aspect here that LaTeX is a bit outdated in 2024 (I know that’s controversial! Sorry)
I met Leslie Lamport seven or eight years ago and asked him what a completely modern LaTeX might look like. He replied “well, we won’t be using PDFs in twenty years” and so it would need to be something completely different. Something interactive, with depth. Remembering, of course, to focus on quality content first and quality presentation second.
In a world with LLMs, this question becomes ever more interesting - why write a literature review if one can be generated?
Re: Fraud, so much fraud
#618Earlier quoted context omitted.
Callng someone "evil" isn't meant to have some explanatory power. It's merely a label saying that they are, well, evil.
The context here is from the root comment: “Are people who commit this type of science fraud just really evil humans?”. “Just really evil” implies that that there is no other explanation, and that the fraud is committed as a function of them being “really evil”. I don’t actually know what people mean when they label someone as “evil”, other than “is doing/saying/thinking stuff I find very reprehensible”. Which doesn’…
Perhaps if you define evil as a low quantity of ability or commitment to search for and act in accordance to what is ultimately true then that will better resonate with you. Of course, that will necessarily lead to questions regarding the nature of truth and whether it exists, but that is beyond the scope of a short reply :)
Re: Fraud, so much fraud
#619Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Every few years you can vote left or right, If you're talking about the US, you can vote center-right (Democratic) or far right (Republican). There is no viable left wing party in the US.
These posts are tiresome. They all boil down to "my view should be the middle". You could just as well claim the Democrats are far left and the republicans center left.
The political "spectrum" is not a range of subjective opinions, it's a range of objectively documented ideas.
I don't know how well they can fit in a unidimensional scale though.
Re: Fraud, so much fraud
#620Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love this, do tell the direction to be nudged in. I wish to experience this new level of understanding.
Nutrition is one place where you can start, because it is possible to do some practical experiments. But, be warned, you will easily spend a decade investigating it. I picked the subject, because I'm sure that in the end you will have achieved something of great value: your own relatively better health. (I said relatively, because diet is only one of the factors that influences health, although I say it's an importan…
> Experiment on yourself
No control group?
> Form your own opinion after a decade
After a decade, differences in your body will mostly be because you are 10 years older.
Such experiments are largely pointless because the only people doing them are people who care about their health. You are more likely to be healthy because of the totality of your life choices, not the specific things you do in the diet experiment.