I just knew that we can generate theory from experiment not vs versa
Physics has a clean division of labor between theorists and experimentalists. AI doesn’t, and as a result we have a lot of bad experiments from theorists and bad theory from experimentalists.
-
-
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
A lot of great results too!
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
In this respect, AI is probably closer to psychology than physics
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Seems like this is a core problem with modern economics and sociology, too, to devastating results.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Everything starts with rejecting the fact that there are underlying causes for one's every behavior. Once you remove the responsibility of action, everyone defines learning differently according to how blind they want to be for their own nature.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
I disagree I think good theories come from people who dabble in both... Not delineating the two with division of labour..... Sure there's enough complexity that "division of labour" helps with perfection but fails "exploration"
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
AI is an applied science, so perhaps the distinction doesn't arise. I'd suggest that physics hasn't seen big breakthroughs like those in previous decades unlike AI where the practical and the theoretical constantly challenge one another, without need for silos.
-
Physics hasn't seen big breakthroughs recently? You kidding us?
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
-
Hi, where's this from? I would like to cite it in ppts
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.