3 ms·

The Dutch system cited didn't use AI and is 15+ years old (ie predates current AI hype by far). Most AI papers have working code available. Etc This entire ar

The Dutch system cited didn't use AI and is 15+ years old (ie predates current AI hype by far). Most AI papers have working code available. Etc This entire article is rife with trivial to find errors that totally invalidate it's claims. there may be a problem, there may not, this article doesn’t help figure it out either way. It feels like narrative was written first, then someone went looking to try to find newsbites that sound like they support it.

latexr 3y ago
I see plenty of links to recent papers (last two years). > This entire article is rife with trivial to find errors that totally invalidate it's claims. Could you share some? Maybe they’re trivial for you but handwaving it doesn’t help others identify what is correct or not. For your claim to be true either the multiple papers cited would have to contain glaring flaws or the author would have to be wildly misinterpreting them. That doesn’t seem trivial to assess. > It feels like narrative was written first, then someone went looking to try to find newsbites that sound like they support it. From the author’s other writings, the opposite seems to be true: https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2023/thank-you-for-your-patience/ https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2023/thank-you-for-your-pati... https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2023/why-i-wrote-the-intelligence-illusion/ https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2023/why-i-wrote-the-intelli...
- UncleEntity 3y ago
  A super obvious one is it’s memorizing all the test answers so the results are flawed. Simple solution: come up with new questions. Plus no knowledge test I’ve ever taken in my life expected novel solutions but were merely testing how well you understand the subject.
nottorp 3y ago
> The Dutch system cited didn't use AI Expert systems aren't AI? Decision trees aren't AI? Only neural networks (which incidentally have been defined 50 years ago) are AI now?

latexr 3y ago

I see plenty of links to recent papers (last two years). > This entire article is rife with trivial to find errors that totally invalidate it's claims. Could you share some? Maybe they’re trivial for you but handwaving it doesn’t help others identify what is correct or not. For your claim to be true either the multiple papers cited would have to contain glaring flaws or the author would have to be wildly misinterpreting them. That doesn’t seem trivial to assess. > It feels like narrative was written first, then someone went looking to try to find newsbites that sound like they support it. From the author’s other writings, the opposite seems to be true: https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2023/thank-you-for-your-patience/ https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2023/thank-you-for-your-pati... https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2023/why-i-wrote-the-intelligence-illusion/ https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2023/why-i-wrote-the-intelli...

UncleEntity 3y ago
A super obvious one is it’s memorizing all the test answers so the results are flawed. Simple solution: come up with new questions. Plus no knowledge test I’ve ever taken in my life expected novel solutions but were merely testing how well you understand the subject.

nottorp 3y ago

> The Dutch system cited didn't use AI Expert systems aren't AI? Decision trees aren't AI? Only neural networks (which incidentally have been defined 50 years ago) are AI now?