A Strange AI Achievement

Question

A Strange AI Achievement

Steve Jones - SSC Editor

SSC Guru

Points: 736173
More actions
November 24, 2021 at 12:00 am

#3954553

Comments posted to this topic are about the item A Strange AI Achievement
November 24, 2021 at 7:20 am

This was removed by the editor as SPAM

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

Steve Collins SSCrazy Points: 2157 More actions · Answer 1

So a billion flies cannot be wrong? Imo attempting to derive wisdom from overdefined equations could turn out to be counterproductive

Aus dem Paradies, das Cantor uns geschaffen, soll uns niemand vertreiben können

webrunner SSC-Dedicated Points: 31862 More actions · Answer 2

Intriguing scenario. However, as I understand it, a Nobel Prize can be awarded only to a living person. It can't be awarded posthumously. By extrapolation, I assume it cannot therefore be awarded to an entity that is not (or never has been) a living person.

So I believe either (1) the Nobel Prize rules would need to be changed, or (2) an AI in line for the Nobel Prize would first have to be classified as a living person.

-- webrunner

This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by webrunner.

-------------------
A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html

Eric M Russell SSC Guru Points: 125561 More actions · Answer 3

Depending on the AI platform, maybe Microsoft, Amazon, or Google should get the Nobel award. The data scientists are just script kiddies.

"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736173 More actions · Answer 4

Steve Collins wrote:

So a billion flies cannot be wrong? Imo attempting to derive wisdom from overdefined equations could turn out to be counterproductive

Not sure what you mean here. If you're implying these models are 12,000 monkeys typing to create something, that's not quite right.

The human process of innovation is often trying lots of ideas, and this is similar. We already have AI/ML models helping to investigate possible material alloys in manufacturing and coming up with designs humans haven't considered. They try and predict medical treatments, even tailoring medicines for individuals.

Steve Collins SSCrazy Points: 2157 More actions · Answer 5

Steve Jones - SSC Editor wrote:

Steve Collins wrote:
So a billion flies cannot be wrong? Imo attempting to derive wisdom from overdefined equations could turn out to be counterproductive
Not sure what you mean here. If you're implying these models are 12,000 monkeys typing to create something, that's not quite right.
The human process of innovation is often trying lots of ideas, and this is similar. We already have AI/ML models helping to investigate possible material alloys in manufacturing and coming up with designs humans haven't considered. They try and predict medical treatments, even tailoring medicines for individuals.

ML is an acronym for "statistics served from an API" no? Statistics have been around for a while and there doesn't seem to be any indication statisticians have some sort of insight into what constitutes intelligence imo. Regarding the monkey analogy it's not quite wrong either. Also, imo. There does seem to be an in-baked assumption to much of public AI journalism whereby something is correct if it's derived from a plurality of opinion. As if crystalizing popular opinion constitutes intelligence; almost as if journalists are modeling themselves as arbiters of intelligence. Maybe publicly described AI is an ego delusion and building functionality as described hardly requires statistics. Maybe and maybe not

Aus dem Paradies, das Cantor uns geschaffen, soll uns niemand vertreiben können