A little off topic, but I've ran into a lot of mathematicians, linguists, psychologists etc. etc. who seem palpably disappointed- even a little angry- that machine learning is not theoretically novel- that it's just the equivalent of banging an enormous amounts of computation and data together. These people are disappointed because they wanted big AI advances to flow from, or perhaps lead to, deep secrets about the human mind, the nature of thought etc.
To me, the effectiveness of just ramming data and computational power over ****relatively**** simple models until they work is a testament to the power of evolution.
I take your point. I'm more annoyed that machine learning is being sold as something new, when it's just the same old stuff with more computer power. That means, in turn, that any statistical problem that can't be dealt with by increasing the sample size is going to be just as prevalent with "machine learning" as it would have been with calculations done by hand, or on an adding machine.
Thank god, I feel like I'm living in the land that invented invisible clothes. As an a former programmer with an interest in statistics, linear regression and predictive models being the main interest, I'm continually aghast at the inflated claims of the unprecedented power of so called AI and ML. It's simplify another IT industry hype cycle the result of which there will be marginal change for vast majority of the world's population and millions transferred to overrated IT firms. Hopefully I can soon retire from what has become a symbiosis of snake oil and ignorance. It's a pity, was programming was once a really satisfying craft, I pity the grads today.
My experience of Chat, it works best when you know very little about the question you are prompting. If you have some experience/ expertise with the question, then Chat does not provide much more.
A little off topic, but I've ran into a lot of mathematicians, linguists, psychologists etc. etc. who seem palpably disappointed- even a little angry- that machine learning is not theoretically novel- that it's just the equivalent of banging an enormous amounts of computation and data together. These people are disappointed because they wanted big AI advances to flow from, or perhaps lead to, deep secrets about the human mind, the nature of thought etc.
To me, the effectiveness of just ramming data and computational power over ****relatively**** simple models until they work is a testament to the power of evolution.
I take your point. I'm more annoyed that machine learning is being sold as something new, when it's just the same old stuff with more computer power. That means, in turn, that any statistical problem that can't be dealt with by increasing the sample size is going to be just as prevalent with "machine learning" as it would have been with calculations done by hand, or on an adding machine.
Thank god, I feel like I'm living in the land that invented invisible clothes. As an a former programmer with an interest in statistics, linear regression and predictive models being the main interest, I'm continually aghast at the inflated claims of the unprecedented power of so called AI and ML. It's simplify another IT industry hype cycle the result of which there will be marginal change for vast majority of the world's population and millions transferred to overrated IT firms. Hopefully I can soon retire from what has become a symbiosis of snake oil and ignorance. It's a pity, was programming was once a really satisfying craft, I pity the grads today.
My experience of Chat, it works best when you know very little about the question you are prompting. If you have some experience/ expertise with the question, then Chat does not provide much more.