Thanks, that was interesting. I kept thinking that this reads like something out of Quanta Magazine, and then at the end there was an attribution to them :)
To all the reflexive AI-downvoters: This is about an application of machine learning, not an LLM. Don’t behave like an advanced autocomplete; think before you click :P
I’m not a reflexive AI downvoter. I’m a reflexive String Theory downvoter.
…can’t argue with that
Why not both?
Then the author could have written the headline as “Machine Learning” instead of clickbaity word like “AI”
In defence of the author, there is absolutely nothing about the term “AI” that just means “LLM” in an informed context (which is what Wired portends to be). And then the words “machine learning” are literally front and centre in the subtitle.
I don’t see how anyone could misunderstand this unless it was a deliberate misreading… Or else just not attempting to read it at all…
(That said, yes, I do hate the fact that product managers now love to talk about how every single feature is “AI” regardless of what it actually is/does)
Years later, after untold exaflops of computing, the AI’s answer appears on the screen: “Dunno”.
“42”
Ya, ya, but what is the question?
“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk” – John von Neumann.
deleted by creator
What makes up the strings?
Theoretical physicists
String theory captured the
hearts and mindscareers of many physicists decades ago because of a lack of empiricismbeautiful simplicity.Improved that somewhat.
