3 ms·

Welcome to modern physics, where physicists do unfalsifiable and imprecise things based on bad philosophy. Anything goes as long as it gets you attention anywhe

Welcome to modern physics, where physicists do unfalsifiable and imprecise things based on bad philosophy. Anything goes as long as it gets you attention anywhere. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5562156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5562156 HNers need to more critical of Science articles. This is where we need good criticism not on some poor hacker's pet project. Edit 1 "Additionally, a company he founded is exploring commercial applications of the research in areas such as robotics, economics and defense." That is a major red flag when people posit a universal AI theory and try to sell to the hapless government tech based on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_Machines_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_Machines_Corporation

javert 14y ago
> Welcome to modern physics, where physicists do unfalsifiable and imprecise things based on bad philosophy. Anything goes as long as it gets you attention anywhere. Thank you! I've been saying that for a long time, but much less eloquently.
wamatt 14y ago
It's turtles all the way down, until you reach Philosophy
- pjscott 14y ago
  ... At which point it's still turtles, but nobody can really agree on what a turtle is, or what it means for something to be turtles, or what it means for something to be anything, including (but not limited to) turtles, or what it means for something to mean something. By the time the subject is settled -- if it ever is settled -- the turtle is dead. And so is God. (For some definitions of "turtle", "dead", "God", and most especially "is".)
  - solistice 14y ago
    Wasn't arguing about the definition of "is" a topic when the Linguists got bored and tried to invade the Philosophy Departments?
Steuard 14y ago
Your comments seem strangely insensitive, given that I already said that I'm a physicist (and presumably a modern one). As I've already indicated, there's reason to be skeptical when physicists stretch past the usual boundaries of the discipline. (Though it still could make important contributions.) But modern physics as modern physics is, by and large, solid science.
- cscurmudgeon 14y ago
  I am also a physicist doing AI. The comment was not aimed at you! I did not mean modern physics (QM,Relativity etc)! That is rock solid! What I meant was physics which is closer to the Time Cube theory than rock solid mathematics on a spectrum of math and science. "As I've already indicated, there's reason to be skeptical when physicists stretch past the usual boundaries of the discipline." There is reason to be skeptical when anybody proposes a grand unifying theory for something as grand and difficult as intelligence!! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! This has been going since 1957 with so many young lives lost (sometimes literally) due to techniques bordering on charlatanism. Sorry to be harsh, I love AI and want it to succeed. It won't succeed if people mix pursuing knowledge with pursuing fame and $. http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-02/ff_aimystery?currentPage=all http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-02/ff_aimyst...

javert 14y ago

> Welcome to modern physics, where physicists do unfalsifiable and imprecise things based on bad philosophy. Anything goes as long as it gets you attention anywhere. Thank you! I've been saying that for a long time, but much less eloquently.

wamatt 14y ago

It's turtles all the way down, until you reach Philosophy

pjscott 14y ago
... At which point it's still turtles, but nobody can really agree on what a turtle is, or what it means for something to be turtles, or what it means for something to be anything, including (but not limited to) turtles, or what it means for something to mean something. By the time the subject is settled -- if it ever is settled -- the turtle is dead. And so is God. (For some definitions of "turtle", "dead", "God", and most especially "is".)
- solistice 14y ago
  Wasn't arguing about the definition of "is" a topic when the Linguists got bored and tried to invade the Philosophy Departments?

Steuard 14y ago

Your comments seem strangely insensitive, given that I already said that I'm a physicist (and presumably a modern one). As I've already indicated, there's reason to be skeptical when physicists stretch past the usual boundaries of the discipline. (Though it still could make important contributions.) But modern physics as modern physics is, by and large, solid science.

cscurmudgeon 14y ago
I am also a physicist doing AI. The comment was not aimed at you! I did not mean modern physics (QM,Relativity etc)! That is rock solid! What I meant was physics which is closer to the Time Cube theory than rock solid mathematics on a spectrum of math and science. "As I've already indicated, there's reason to be skeptical when physicists stretch past the usual boundaries of the discipline." There is reason to be skeptical when anybody proposes a grand unifying theory for something as grand and difficult as intelligence!! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! This has been going since 1957 with so many young lives lost (sometimes literally) due to techniques bordering on charlatanism. Sorry to be harsh, I love AI and want it to succeed. It won't succeed if people mix pursuing knowledge with pursuing fame and $. http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-02/ff_aimystery?currentPage=all http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-02/ff_aimyst...