Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Wednesday July 01 2015, @10:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the its-psychohistory-time-folks dept.

Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg figures there could be a formula that explains how people think. During a wide-ranging online question-and-answer session on his Facebook page Tuesday, Zuckerberg told famed physicist Stephen Hawking he would like to find that equation.

"I'm most interested in questions about people," Zuckerberg said in a written chat forum response to Hawking asking what big questions in science he would like to know the answers to. Zuckerberg responded with a list that included how the brain works and immortality.

"I'm also curious about whether there is a fundamental mathematical law underlying human social relationships that governs the balance of who and what we all care about," Zuckerberg added. "I bet there is."

http://phys.org/news/2015-07-facebook-zuckerberg-figure-social-equation.html

Will Zuckerberg be a real life Hari Seldon ? Does SN think there can be a social equation ? If yes, can that equation be formulated in a way that can cater to all (or majority) of social relationships ?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TGV on Thursday July 02 2015, @06:07AM

    by TGV (2838) on Thursday July 02 2015, @06:07AM (#204116)

    can think so simplistically. As a child, I looked at text in another language and thought that there must be some formula to change the letters so that they would form the same text in my native language. That's what Zuckerberg's idea sounds like,

    Anyone who has studied a bit of AI or cognitive psychology will know that we haven't made much progress in modelling the human mind. We can imitate its performance by statistical training on our own data, yes, but there is no understanding. There also isn't enough data to build anything closely resembling normal human behavior. And even then, such a model would be an unreliable predictor of some optimized mean, not an individual model.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5