Thanks, that was interesting. I kept thinking that this reads like something out of Quanta Magazine, and then at the end there was an attribution to them :)
To all the reflexive AI-downvoters: This is about an application of machine learning, not an LLM. Don’t behave like an advanced autocomplete; think before you click :P
Then the author could have written the headline as “Machine Learning” instead of clickbaity word like “AI”
In defence of the author, there is absolutely nothing about the term “AI” that just means “LLM” in an informed context (which is what Wired portends to be). And then the words “machine learning” are literally front and centre in the subtitle.
I don’t see how anyone could misunderstand this unless it was a deliberate misreading… Or else just not attempting to read it at all…
(That said, yes, I do hate the fact that product managers now love to talk about how every single feature is “AI” regardless of what it actually is/does)
I’m not a reflexive AI downvoter. I’m a reflexive String Theory downvoter.
AI telling us string theory is that silly string is safe to eat
Years later, after untold exaflops of computing, the AI’s answer appears on the screen: “Dunno”.
“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk” – John von Neumann.
String theory captured the
hearts and mindscareers of many physicists decades ago because of a lack of empiricismbeautiful simplicity.
Improved that somewhat.
