research engineer, computational neuroscience, neuromechanics ⚾ follows not equal to endorse.
Peace to all.
master Jack ass of some trades, PhD of none
Map and territory thing i think. An actual individual biological neuron is the territory for many neuroscientists and it is known to be a more complex entity, universal function approximation is a formal feature of ANNs
@kanair maybe can be on the safe side and effectively treat them as they somewhat are at least valued as if they are, humans naturally do this even with machines like old automobiles
I’m guilty of this to be clear but man techbro philosophy is mostly quite bad. “First principles thinking” but also you forgot to read up on the hundreds or thousands of years of prior thought on the subject
If the entire tenure and promotion system weren't predicated on churning out a bunch of (mostly?) slop that no one reads, then there would be no incentive to author a bunch of fake AI papers. Academic culture was broken before AI, the chatbots just made this impossible to ignore.
Einstein on (not) using NL for invention: "The words or the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought"
My two cents on AI consciousness discourse: Folks need to learn the distinction between computational modeling (using computational tools to model the dynamics of a real system, which need not be computational) and the computational theory of mind (cognition is computation)
The near impossible is becoming possible.
We are building toward a sustained human presence at the lunar South Pole. It begins with Phase 1: CLPS landers and LTV rovers testing the “science of survival” on the lunar surface before heavy HLS cargo landers deliver the mass and infrastructure needed for an enduring presence.
We are building the Moon Base for all we will learn, the innovation that will improve life on Earth, the inspiration for the next generation of explorers, and to master the skills needed for where we will inevitably go next...Mars.
The Golden Age of lunar exploration has begun.
I think this is just being Bayesian. People use AI in writing for two things mainly: 1) improving their writing after idea generation and 2) as a shortcut to idea generation (eg write me a few paragraphs making argument X and provide support). Most people are likely doing both 1) and 2).
When seeing writing, a person needs to decide whether the effort spent reading and thinking about is worth it in terms of learning new information from the writer. If the writer uses AI for 2), then there is little private signal or unique information—it is the same information the reader can generate themselves, probably more concisely, from using the AI model. So it’s perfectly reasonable to detect AI writing (either through detector or just feeling the cringe) and to stop reading.
The issue with using AI for 1) is that you are pooling with 2). It is very difficult to signal that you spent time and effort generating the ideas and have unique information to convey.
This is all to say this: it is perfectly reasonable to use AI as much as you want for writing, but it’s worth being aware that it is also perfectly reasonable for others to not read it.
@ylecun@francoisfleuret yes and scientists engineer experiments by this definition. The scientific question is open/new, but they must innovate, design, implement and ship the experiment
@mweinbach@Srasgon Was mostly light hearted comment, but I assure you some swear by diet coke being a caffeine fix that isn't replaced by other sodas, caffeine sensitivity varies quite a bit
@Who_Dey85@BaseballWRLD_ 99 wins over 258 starts with elite career era and whip is the thing here really, it's because of very very bad run support with the Mets