Reply to post: "the rest of the 81 were purely academic"

Don't believe the hype: Today's AI unlikely to best actual doctors at diagnosing patients from medical scans

Pascal Monett Silver badge

"the rest of the 81 were purely academic"

In other words, pie-in-the-sky, Ai-is-wonderful, please-continue-funding-me papers that apparently have a diametrically opposite view from papers based on actual data.

Why am I not surprised ?

These are the kinds of papers that proclaim that facial recognition works almost perfectly, when actual trials come back with a success rate of less than 13%.

Look, I understand that theoretical physics is just as important as actual physics, but the difference is that theoretical physicists do not try to pass their musings as actual science. They ask science engineers to create the experiments that justify or invalidate their theories. Once a result is obtained, they review their theories and progress in their musings.

It seems that, as far as "AI" is concerned, there are no such updates. That means that actual AI is nowhere near being created because the pie-in-the-sky musing are not bothering to ground themselves in reality.

Oh well, it's for the better I guess. The longer we take to build an actual Skynet, the better.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020