When the first AlphaGo results came out, I got quite annoyed, and polled twitter about whether I should write a debunking.
-
Show this thread
-
Consensus was: either it’s significant, in which case you will look dumb soon, or else it isn’t, in which case everyone will forget about it, and you will have wasted your time.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
A couple years later, it’s still bogus, and the hype tsunami has climbed even higher. Probably nothing I could have done would have punctured the bubble, but I regret not trying.
4 replies 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
-
Replying to @TaylorPearsonMe @Meaningness
Or should I just read the thing you tweeted before? https://medium.com/@josecamachocollados/is-alphazero-really-a-scientific-breakthrough-in-ai-bf66ae1c84f2 …
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
David Chapman Retweeted David Chapman
The main point is https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/941033622668115968 … . Besides that, it’s exceptionally bad science in multiple standard replication-crisis ways. No one can reproduce it. It shouldn’t have been published. It’s advertising hype for Google, not an academic result.
David Chapman added,
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.