3 ms·

While agree with you on the need to straighten the narrative and usage of these terms, the author is a philosopher and uses AI not in the common sense nor in th

While agree with you on the need to straighten the narrative and usage of these terms, the author is a philosopher and uses AI not in the common sense nor in the Computer Science sense. It is indeed confusing but he's very very rigorous in the way he writes (this is extremely simple writing for his usual style) so don't believe he's using the terms intercheangeably

whatshisface 7y ago
Most of these philosophical thinkpiece authors are charlatans. Charlatan philosophers can get along very well, even in professional circles, because there's almost no way to tell the difference between a true belief and a false belief in some areas of philosophy. However, they meet their downfall in articles like these, when they make the mistake of talking about something that is relatively easy to verify - revealing that they are sloppy thinkers with great English skills.
- chobeat 7y ago
  I don't get what you're talking about. I'm a Machine Learning engineers and I find his work one of the best being conducted on the topic. You can say he's snob or inaccessible, but for me Pasquinelli is in the top 1% of the tech critique, especially in the theoretical part. Also he's not even a native speaker and I don't find his way writing very compelling. Quite the contrary. Why do you think he's a charlatan?
YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
I don't know anything about the author of the piece. I understand that it's a sketch of a larger article that he intends to write for publication. I hope that he will have the time to refine his scholarship until then. I'm not sure what to do of the ideas discussed in the article, themselves. I am honestly confused about what he means when he's talking about "AI", given his loose use of terminology, so I'm not sure I understand the article clearly enough to agree or disagree with it. To clarify, I'd be all for reading a strong critique of the modern (last decade) use of machine learning, including neural networks and deep learning (but not only). If he's talking about AI as a whole, however, I don't see how his critique can really work. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone using a classical planner or a constraint solver to drive an automated truck, say. The start of the article, with the discussion of the Agnicayana ritual was very intersting.
- chobeat 7y ago
  To clarify how he uses AI, I suggest you to read this: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3078224 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3078224 This might help you to bridge your understanding of AI with how it's used elsewhere.

whatshisface 7y ago

Most of these philosophical thinkpiece authors are charlatans. Charlatan philosophers can get along very well, even in professional circles, because there's almost no way to tell the difference between a true belief and a false belief in some areas of philosophy. However, they meet their downfall in articles like these, when they make the mistake of talking about something that is relatively easy to verify - revealing that they are sloppy thinkers with great English skills.

chobeat 7y ago
I don't get what you're talking about. I'm a Machine Learning engineers and I find his work one of the best being conducted on the topic. You can say he's snob or inaccessible, but for me Pasquinelli is in the top 1% of the tech critique, especially in the theoretical part. Also he's not even a native speaker and I don't find his way writing very compelling. Quite the contrary. Why do you think he's a charlatan?

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

I don't know anything about the author of the piece. I understand that it's a sketch of a larger article that he intends to write for publication. I hope that he will have the time to refine his scholarship until then. I'm not sure what to do of the ideas discussed in the article, themselves. I am honestly confused about what he means when he's talking about "AI", given his loose use of terminology, so I'm not sure I understand the article clearly enough to agree or disagree with it. To clarify, I'd be all for reading a strong critique of the modern (last decade) use of machine learning, including neural networks and deep learning (but not only). If he's talking about AI as a whole, however, I don't see how his critique can really work. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone using a classical planner or a constraint solver to drive an automated truck, say. The start of the article, with the discussion of the Agnicayana ritual was very intersting.

chobeat 7y ago
To clarify how he uses AI, I suggest you to read this: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3078224 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3078224 This might help you to bridge your understanding of AI with how it's used elsewhere.