4 ms·
It was, but it punted in the conclusion... > Mitchell in her paper compares modern AI to alchemy. It produces dazzling, impressive results but it often lacks a
by degamad 1y ago
It was, but it punted in the conclusion...
> Mitchell in her paper compares modern AI to alchemy. It produces dazzling, impressive results but it often lacks a deep, foundational theory of intelligence.
> It’s a powerful metaphor, but I think a more pragmatic conclusion is slightly different. The challenge isn't to abandon our powerful alchemy in search of a pure science of intelligence.
But alchemy was wrong and chasing after the illusions created by the frauds who promoted alchemy held back the advancement of science for a long time.
We absolutely should have abandoned alchemy as soon as we saw that it didn't work, and moved to figuring out the science of what worked.
- dumpsterdiver 1y agoYou know what they say though about folks who don’t know any better: https://home.cern/news/news/physics/alice-detects-conversion-lead-gold-lhc https://home.cern/news/news/physics/alice-detects-conversion...
- musicale 1y ago> But alchemy was wrong Yet alchemists developed and refined many important chemical processes including crystallization, distillation, evaporation, synthesis of acids/bases/salts, etc., as well as many useful substances and compounds from gunpowder to aqua regia. Also various dyes, drugs, and poisons. Their ranks included the likes of Paracelsus, Tycho Brahe, Boyle, and Newton.
- jokoon 1y agoThere is always an "age of ignorance" that precedes an age of knowledge. Alchemy helped to create chemistry. I think that's often how science works, the models improves over time.