Audio is streamed directly from the publisher (dts.podtrac.com) as published in their RSS feed. Play Podcasts does not host this file. Rights-holders can request removal through the copyright & takedown page.
Show Notes
Are computer scientists recklessly applying their methods to other fields without sufficient thoughtfulness? What are computer scientists good for anyway? Ben, in true masochistic fashion, worries that computer scientists are overstepping their bounds. Vaden analyzes his worries with a random forest and determines that they are only 10% accurate, but then proceeds to piss of his entire field by arguing that we're nowhere close to true artificial intelligence.
References
- "Good" isn't good enough, Ben Green.
- "How close are we to creating artificial intelligence?", David Deutsch, Aeon
- "Artificial Intelligence - The Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet", Michael Jordan, Medium
- "Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisal", Gary Marcus
Errata
- Vaden says "every logarithmic curve starts with exponential growth". This should be "every logistic curve stats with exponential growth".
- Vaden says "95 degree accuracy". This should be "95 percent accuracy."
- The three main rationalists were Descarte, Spinoza, and Leibniz, and the three main empiricists were Bacon, Locke, and Hume. (Not whatever Vaden said)
Topics
HubrisComputer ScienceAI