3 ms·
Woah that’s a big deal if true. I remember Nate Silver had a good chapter on this in his book on statistics. He went through the history of failed attempts in I
by dmix 2y ago
Woah that’s a big deal if true. I remember Nate Silver had a good chapter on this in his book on statistics. He went through the history of failed attempts in Italy and elsewhere. It’s a famously hard problem that has a long history of false promises and good efforts that simply didn’t work out, where experts just generally concluded it’s an unsolvable problem with current tech and the general random nature of it (in terms of usefully specific accuracy).
- jaza 2y agoYes, this also made me immediately think of that chapter in Nate Silver's book ("The Signal and the Noise"). Considering what I remember Nate's musings on the topic to be, I highly doubt that this is a particularly significant improvement in earthquake prediction. Sure, with the ability to crunch more numbers than ever before, AI can no doubt up the accuracy a bit. However, same as with the non-AI techniques that it's built upon, only a big-ish improvement in our fundamental understanding of tectonics, and/or a big-ish improvement in the physical sensors that feed data into the models, is really going to move the needle in this space.