/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10351945

>>10351944
>>>/trash/

>>10351962
>your opinion
>>>/lgbt/

>>10351944
>AI
not science or math

>>10351974
Its pretty much only science and math.

>>10351944
>Pulitzer price winner
red flag #1
>Gödel Escher Bach
>naming unrelated personalities, especially in the context of AI
red flag #2
>r. Hofstadter
>cognitive scientist with absolutely no experience or knowledge of actual AI development
three strikes and you're out anon

>>10351993
>unrelated personalities, especially in the context of AI
Thanks for outing yourself as a brainlet, it makes it much easier to disregard your post. Also
>no experience or knowledge of actual AI development
With claims like that you must be the lead dev on Googles Deepmind huh?

>>10352027
no, but I don't listen to a fucking humanities major talking about physics, or computer science for that matter retard

>>10351993
>red flag #1
fallacy fallacy
>red flag #2
read the actual book
>cognitive scientist
Hofstadter is a physicist
guess its a new inning...

>>10351944
>If you've not read this popsci book.
Lmao, fuck off, I hate neo/sci/ so much.

>>10352033
He has a PhD. in physics you massive tard.

>>10352034
yes his dad is one, and an accomplished one at that. imagine "surpassing" your Nobel laureate father by writing a fucking popsci book lmao

>>10352044
currently he is a professor of cognitive science, making him a humanitiesfag. his only accomplishment in physics is finding a "cool looking" fractal lmao.

>>10352047
>implying Douglas R. Hofstadter isnt an accomplished academic
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter%27s_butterfly

>>10352055
Its like you didnt even do the bare minimum in researching him. Literally read just his Wikipedia page. You have been wrong on almost every point.

>>10352058
exactly.
>>10352055

anyway, you want to read an actual book on ai and learn something on the way? read pic related for example

>>10352066
>published over 20 years later
GEB isnt about programming artificial intelligence you dolt. Its “higher level” than that. Saying “Reinforcement Learning” is better for learning about how to program AI is like saying Larry Page knows more about http than Alan Turing. If you think this is a valid arguement against GEB you either havent read the book, even a little bit, or you missed the point entirely.

>>10352047
>his dad is one
he literally is one too. Has a bachelor in mathematics and a phd in physics. He even talks about his work on solid bodies.

>>10352099
>is like saying Larry Page knows more about http than Alan Turing
while this analogy is completely retarded, I understand the point you are trying to make, it still completely fails tho since your shitty little book had nothing and still doesn't have anything to do with modern developments in artificial intelligence developments. it's a pseudoscientific philosophy-tier book where Hofstadter discovers complexity theory for himself kek

>>10352111
>The point of GEB
>
>
>
>your head

>>10352126
name the scientific value or impact your popsci book has for AI development. because I can't find it. and no, "read the book" doesn't count, this is a fucking cop out and you know it

>>10352133
Ok, let me just explain the 700+ pages to you in a post on a Mongolian cheese squeezing blog. Just wait while i type it up.

>>10352142
>he can't
just as I thought
btw, not being able to summarise the core concepts of a supposedly scientific book already reeks of pseudointellectualism and brainletism.

>>10352144
Just wait. Im typing it up.

He does a reasonable good job at conveying Goedel's incompleteness theorem to people lacking a rigorous mathematical background.
The part where he talks about AI however, is little more than incoherent rambling, which is also utterly outdated by now.

>>10352144
>>10352133
>>10352111
>>10352066
>>10352055
>>10352033
Is this a script or are you just insanely lucky?

>>10352163
holy fuck, I just noticed
it's not intentional I swear

>>10352038
If you dont recall a period of time where /sci/ relentlessly circle jerked around this book, you are a cancerous newfag.

>>10352163
>>10352168
obviously the Id is not an actual RNG, but 6 dubs in a row is equivalent to a probability of "1 in a million". holy fuck

>>10352187
Never to the point of:
>If you have not read this book, you are not allowed to debate about AI on this board.
Newfaggot.

>>10352156
still typing anon? watch out or you might copy half of the book into the thread

>>10352197
Not even that anon, but he is right. There was a GEB thread on this board non-stop for like a year. Im not sure if it was shills or honest praise, but if you don’t remember you have proven yourself a newfag.

>>10351944
people who value that book know literally nothing about computer science lol its such a joke

>>10352326
i know right? no code in this whole book, what a joke, not even a github

What happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJHSDACiFqU

>>10352332
Is this a bot post? What does it have to do with the thread?

No audiobook version. Into the trash it would go if I bought it, which I won't.

>>10352144
That's ok, I can summarize the book:

Physishit invents new terminology to give partial proofs about elementary set theory. From there, he proceeds to develop an incoherent argument about the paradox of self reference and that it is what gives rise to conciousness. All of this is interspersed with philosophical parables in the vein of Michael Douglas but ends up falling short by being equally cringey and decidedly less humorous.

I'd recommend this book to someone who never took a stem class, but it's classic popsci garbage.