[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 289 KB, 576x2992, 20120321.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6152918 No.6152918 [Reply] [Original]

My thesis supervisor, who's the editor of one of the biggest CS journals, forwarded me a paper by a couple of physicists from a pretty well-known institution that he received for a peer-review and the paper is so ridiculous and it shows that they have ZERO knowledge in the field they've written a paper in.

It reminded me of this SMBC comic and it's absolutely spot on.

Why all these physicists can't stick to their field is beyond me.. maybe they can't publish in their own field so they infect other fields with their "methods".

>> No.6152939
File: 38 KB, 358x540, physicists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6152939

>>6152918

>> No.6152954

>>6152918
Barabasi comes to mind:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6794/full/406378a0.html

And the rebuttal which shows why the authors didn't learn even the most basic things about EE before writing the paper because "muh networks motherfucker":
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/41/14497.full#sec-2

In general people are biased towards seeing fragility in large systems right now, so it's easier to pass BS through as long as it fits that preconception.

>> No.6152968 [DELETED] 

Oh and here's another gem, a physicist on AI - just read Karl Popper and that'll fundamental constraints in the field:
http://www.aeonmagazine.com/being-human/david-deutsch-artificial-intelligence/

And the rebuttal:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-real-reasons-we-dont-have-agi-yet

>> No.6152971

Oh and here's another gem, a physicist on AI - just read Karl Popper and that'll remove the fundamental constraints in the field:
http://www.aeonmagazine.com/being-human/david-deutsch-artificial-intelligence/

And the rebuttal:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-real-reasons-we-dont-have-agi-yet

>> No.6152973
File: 12 KB, 200x200, michio-kaku.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6152973

>>6152918
if you want a laugh, watch this guy explain how DNA and molecular computers will one day replace classical computers.

LOL!!!

>> No.6153040

>>6152973

Quantum computers could already add 10+10 like 10 years ago, imagine what will happen by 2020.

Transhumanism is inevitable.

>> No.6153189

>>6153040
>Quantum computers could already add 10+10 like 10 years ago, imagine what will happen by 2020.

you know fuck-all about QC.

>> No.6153202
File: 59 KB, 464x450, UBS Banker.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6153202

>>6152918
http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/02/10/when-physicists-linguistics/ZoHNxhE6uunmM7976nWsRP/story.html

>> No.6153206

>>6152971
Both have nothing to do with actual AI research. Both links you posted are inane sci fi babble without scientific basis and could have been easily written by a 10 year old.

>> No.6153212

>>6153206
>Both have nothing to do with AI research

Then read it again:
>The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet, I believe, have nothing to do with Popperian philosophy, and everything to do with:

>The weakness of current computer hardware (rapidly being remedied via exponential technological growth!)
The relatively minimal funding allocated to AGI research (which, I agree with Deutsch, should be distinguished from “narrow AI” research on highly purpose-specific AI systems like IBM’s Jeopardy!-playing AI or Google’s self-driving cars).

>The integration bottleneck: the difficulty of integrating multiple complex components together to make a complex dynamical software system, in cases where the behavior of the integrated system depends sensitively on every one of the components.

>inb4 Ben Goertzel doesn't know shit about AI

>> No.6153215

Lol, this reminds me of a paper one of my professors showed me the abstract for. It was from like the 90s and actually got published somewhere. It was a biology paper, called something along the lines of "A mathematical approximation for determining the area under a known data curve".

The paper was literally them deriving Riemann integral approximation.

I guess the point is, it doesn't matter if you're a published PhD, that doesn't mean you have a high school level understanding of other fields. Although how you even get a BS without ever seeing a riemann sum is beyond me...

>> No.6153217

>>6153212
If you're impressed by these platitudes, that only shows how ignorant you are of AI. Go back to school and stop talking about things you don't understand.

>> No.6153221

>>6153217
Go ahead and point out why his summation isn't accurate or detailed enough in your opinion. We all know you can't.

>> No.6153232

>>6153217

My old abstract prof was a huge machine learning guy who'd always think my answers in class were retarded.

Hope the fucker is ready for when my paper hits.

>> No.6153255

I was given a genetics paper to review by my PI, the authors were all from China except one who was based in the Netherlands.

I couldn't make sense of a single godamn sentence.

>> No.6153261

>>6153215
>It was a biology paper, called something along the lines of "A mathematical approximation for determining the area under a known data curve".

Medicine, not biology.

>> No.6153267

>>6153255
>I couldn't make sense of a single godamn sentence.

they probably ran it through google translate…

>> No.6153286

>>6152954
>Barabasi comes to mind:

YES! So damn true. I came across that doofus when I picked up a book of his called BUSRST. Holy shit, it's so full of nonsense I actually LOLed several times.

Guy's just another wanna-be attention whore.

>> No.6153627

>>6152918
Your field is shit. Get over it.

Leave and never come back as CS has nothing to do with /sci/.

>> No.6153633

>>6153627
>math has nothing to do with Science & Math