Comments by "r baxter" (@rbaxter286) on "" video.

  1. Have twice given New Scientist a chance to be a source of science at this residence. Both time failed, from wishy-washy/"Yet Another NS 'Correction' Printed"/plain wrong, or "Well, Duh?!" content. I'll keep my AAAS membership and my weekly Science issue, along with special issues. There may be retractions there, but the rest is REAL science, not merely Journalists Do Science word salad.
    2
  2. You, as an Honest-to-Goodness Scientist, are working with the REAL applications for AI that have been improved and delivering useful results and discoveries, and I can really appreciate your disgust and frustration!! Yep, kinda think I have been saying it for a year now, too. The CEO's got blowback from stockholders on the COSTS of AI research, the CEOs went to their AI researchers and said, "You need a product I can sell THIS YEAR or you're ALLL FIIIIRRRED!", ala Spacely Sprockets. What we got as 'products' are the Schtick-and-Schlock you are now highlighting, which DO NOTHING really useful.
    1
  3. Time to FIRE 20% of IT, the ones skiiving off as IT does, and give the rest of it, THE COMPETENT WORKERS, a raise to stop 'implementation' of Look'it What We're Doing, Mom! initiatives. This all sounds like The IT Crowd are in charge of actual Corporate IT!
    1
  4. And, what if instead of funding Artificial Ignorance, there were more math TAs who are sent out to do literature reviews? Then, you get ACTUAL Creativity while using literature reviews as an excuse for funding The Create Actual Creativity Program? Just using the hook "We're saving the university money!" is a contemptuous LIE to buff the Dean's/Dean's Lickspittles prestige and further funding!
    1
  5. LLM are nothing more than Ramon Lull's "Ars Magna" shell game/party novelty updated with "Goes Faster, Tastes Better, Aerodynamic Styling" PR B/S!
    1