3 ms·

1. Google hiring X is not the same as X's model being scientifically valid. 2. Model X for intelligence being highly technical or cool in some mathematical way

1. Google hiring X is not the same as X's model being scientifically valid. 2. Model X for intelligence being highly technical or cool in some mathematical way is not scientific validation. 3. Google hiring X is not the same as X's model being successful in the industry. I have long switched over to DuckDuckGo for technical queries. Anyways, what AI people should first address always is point number 2. AI has always jumped from one cool thing to the next without answering whether that cool thing has any scientific basis. Don't bring another AI winter ;) It is always cool to see excitement over research in AI! (As long as it does not drown out other competitive approaches which might bear fruit in the long run.)

stiff 14y ago
1. Google hiring X is not the same as X's model being scientifically valid. That's exactly what I am complaining about. 2. Model X for intelligence being highly technical or cool in some mathematical way is not scientific validation. I never said that, it just narrows the amount of people that can comment on it with merit. 3. Google hiring X is not the same as X's model being successful in the industry. It was just a side-comment.
tensor 14y ago
Nobody has ever convinced me humans are intelligent. Every specific example of human intelligence put forward, it eventually ends up that machines do it better. How is one to scientifically validate against something that can't even be defined?
- cscurmudgeon 14y ago
  >Nobody has ever convinced me humans are intelligent. Every specific example of human intelligence put forward, it eventually ends up that machines do it better. First of all that is completely wrong even for simple things like image recognition (try building a face recognizer which works under all possible conditions). But more starkly consider the following question: Is Geoff Hinton a machine?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
cscurmudgeon 14y ago
The downvote is amusing. Care to engage in an interesting conversation rather than resorting to drive-by-downvoting? I guess I touched an sensitive point with the Google fan boys here. Sigh.

stiff 14y ago

1. Google hiring X is not the same as X's model being scientifically valid. That's exactly what I am complaining about. 2. Model X for intelligence being highly technical or cool in some mathematical way is not scientific validation. I never said that, it just narrows the amount of people that can comment on it with merit. 3. Google hiring X is not the same as X's model being successful in the industry. It was just a side-comment.

tensor 14y ago

Nobody has ever convinced me humans are intelligent. Every specific example of human intelligence put forward, it eventually ends up that machines do it better. How is one to scientifically validate against something that can't even be defined?

cscurmudgeon 14y ago
>Nobody has ever convinced me humans are intelligent. Every specific example of human intelligence put forward, it eventually ends up that machines do it better. First of all that is completely wrong even for simple things like image recognition (try building a face recognizer which works under all possible conditions). But more starkly consider the following question: Is Geoff Hinton a machine?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

cscurmudgeon 14y ago

The downvote is amusing. Care to engage in an interesting conversation rather than resorting to drive-by-downvoting? I guess I touched an sensitive point with the Google fan boys here. Sigh.