Remix.run Logo
dcanelhas 4 hours ago

I'm half expecting to see "AI model" appearing as stand-in for "linear regression" at this point in the cycle.

ninjagoo 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I'm half expecting to see "AI model" appearing as stand-in for "linear regression" at this point in the cycle.

Already the case with consulting companies, have seen it myself

idiotsecant an hour ago | parent [-]

Some career do-nothing-but-make-noise in my organization hired a firm to 'Do AI' on some shitty data and the outcome was basically linear regression. It turns out that you can impressive executives with linear regression if you deliver it enthusiastically enough.

tasuki 2 minutes ago | parent [-]

Tbh, often enough, linear regression is exactly what is needed.

blitzar 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm half expecting to see "AI model" appearing as stand-in for "if > 0" at this point in the cycle.

Foobar8568 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is why I am programming now in Ocaml, files themselves are AI ( ml ).

srean an hour ago | parent [-]

I am sure you did not forget that pattern matching.

Vetch an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This is essentially what any relu based neural network approximately looks like (smoother variants have replaced the original ramp function). AI, even LLMs, essentially reduce to a bunch of code like

    let v0 = 0
    let v1 = 0.40978399*(0.616*u + 0.291*v)
    let v2 = if 0 > v1 then 0 else v1

    let v3 = 0
    let v4 = 0.377928*(0.261*u + 0.468*v)
    let v5 = if 0 > v4 then 0 else v4...
samrus 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

Thats a bit far. Relu does check x>0 but thats just one non-linearity in the linear/non-linear sandwich that makes up universal function approximator theorem. Its more conplex than just x>0

phire 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm sure I've seen basic hill climbing (and other optimisation algorithms) described as AI, and then used evidence of AI solving real-world science/engineering problems.

LiamPowell 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Historically this was very much in the field of AI, which is such a massive field that saying something uses AI is about as useful as saying it uses mathematics. Since the term was first coined it's been constantly misused to refer to much more specific things.

From around when the term was first coined: "artificial intelligence research is concerned with constructing machines (usually programs for general-purpose computers) which exhibit behavior such that, if it were observed in human activity, we would deign to label the behavior 'intelligent.'" [1]

[1]: https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1963.1057864

zingar 3 hours ago | parent [-]

That definition moves the goalposts almost by definition, people only stopped thinking that chess demonstrated intelligence when computers started doing it.

Eufrat 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The term artificial intelligence has always been just a buzzword designed to sell whatever it needed to. IMHO, it has no meaningful value outside of a good marketing term. John McCarthy is usually the person who is given credit for coming up with the name and he has admitted in interviews that it was just to get eyeballs for funding.

coherentpony an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I am somewhat cynically waiting for the AI community to rediscover the last half a century of linear algebra and optimisation techniques.

At some point someone will realise that backpropagation and adjoint solves are the same thing.

yread 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And why not, when linear regression works, it works so well it's basically magic, better than intelligence, artificial or otherwise

plasino 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Having work with people who do that, I can guarantee that’s not the case. See https://ssummers.web.cern.ch/conifer/ and HSL4ML, these run BDT and CNN

Staross an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

That works well to get around patents btw :)