Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Dopefish on Sunday February 23 2014, @12:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the knowledge-is-power dept.
dyslexic writes "An Equation For Intelligence? It is something like the philosopher's stone. A sort of E=mc2 that would put intelligence, and more particularly artificial intelligence, on a sound theoretical footing. But could it be as simple as this TED talk video (available on the link in addition to the article) suggests? The video explains some of this and provides examples of the principle in action where it is claimed to replicate a number of "human-like" intelligent behaviors including cooperation and tool use."
 
This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Insightful) by WildWombat on Sunday February 23 2014, @02:48AM

    by WildWombat (1428) on Sunday February 23 2014, @02:48AM (#5049)

    Its a rare occurrence when I watch a video of that type, summary or not. In general I feel that if you have an idea you want to convey, write an essay. I can read your essay in way less time than it will take to watch your video. If you really need to convey some visual information, use some pictures. I know everyone learns differently and that videos may be great for some people but I almost completely ignore video as a format for intellectual discussion. Its just inefficient time wise.

    Cheers,
    -ww

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

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Sunday February 23 2014, @11:18AM

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Sunday February 23 2014, @11:18AM (#5148) Homepage

    Oh, I always watch TED talks that are linked to. Just to confirm my opinion that they're self-indulgent fatuous nonsense.

    This guy likens himself to Einstein and Feynmann.

    Best about that is that he likens the importance of his equation to Einstein's E=mc^2. He seems to be overlooking that there's no such equation. Einstein came up with E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2. The variable p term later got merged in with the constant m, and created a variable ("relativistic") m. Einstein was horrified by this modification, and denied its validity. Sure, the short equation is punchier, but why sacrifice correctness for space?

    So he's likening his equation to a misleading misattribution.

    I guess he did that to maximise his future choices...

    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves