I find the constant critique of punchy style a bit tiring. It would be more productive for the grandparent to think about the content and state an opinion.
The link in the article that is right near the words you're talking about links to a wikipedia page that says the book is from 2005. So I conclude it was 2005 or soon after
So far i really like what it does for the example articles shown. I want to test it on 1 or 2 articles I know well, and if it passes that test it's a product I'd totally pay for.
I generally agree with the broader point you're making, but I also think there's nothing wrong with pointing out how messed up it is that that's the reality of the choice. The whole point of improving society is to eliminate this kind of dilemma
Maybe. Those could be the case. But ignoring all confounding factors, this phenomenon is possible with numerical experiments alone. One of the meanings of "the Law of Small Numbers".
I agree with most everything you said. The problem has always been the short-term job loss, particularly today where society as a whole has resources for safety nets, but hasnt implemented them.
Anger at companies who hold power in multiple places to prevent and worsen this situation for people is valid anger.
As much as I like the article, I begrudgingly agree with you, which is why I think the author mentions the physical constraints of energy as the future wall that companies will have to deal with.
The question is do we think that will actually happen?
Personally I would love if it did, then this post would have the last laugh (as would I), but I think companies realize this energy problem already. Just search for the headlines of big tech funding or otherwise supporting nuclear reactors, power grid upgrades, etc.
In my experience in neuroscience it even differs widely across programs/universities. Some good professors care about giving good talks, and if you're lucky it becomes contagious in the program. Others think less of you if it's clear, some are too naive to realize obscurity is not a virtue.
Yeah, but still "scary" because you have to be really careful to not fool yourself and pay attention even with those algorithms. For example, a good demonstration with tsne
https://distill.pub/2016/misread-tsne/?hl=cs
I really do agree with your point overall, but in a technical paper I do think even word choice can be implicitly a claim. Scientists present what they know or are claiming and thus word it carefully.
My background is neuroscience, where anthropomorphising is particularly discouraged, because it assumes knowledge or certainty of an unknowable internal state, so the language is carefully constructed e.g. when explaining animal behavior, and it's for good reason.
I think the same is true here for a model "knowing" somethig, both in isolation within this paper, and come on, consider the broader context of AI and AGI as a whole. Thus it's the responsibility of the authors to write accordingly. If it were a blog I wouldn't care, but it's not. I hold technical papers to a higher standard.
If we simply disagree that's fine, but we do disagree.
I agree with your point except for scientific papers. Let's push ourselves to use precise, non-shorthand or hand waving in technical papers and publications, yes? If not there, of all places, then where?