The Exchanges

Every argument clarity score on this site is built from rows on this page. Each question and answer was assessed with names hidden, the host's own answers included, on four things from 1 to 5: directness (does it answer the question asked), coherence (do the ideas follow), precision (concrete details and clear references), compression (says a lot per word). The weighted mix (30/30/25/15) is the exchange score. A person's published score averages their exchange scores on raw tape only, at least 8 of them, shrunk toward the cohort mean. Full method →

Azeem Azhar no published score: only 2 usable exchanges on raw tape, and a fair score needs 8+ record → ← everyone

Every exchange below was scored with names hidden, four dimensions each from 1 to 5. An exchange's score is 0.30·directness + 0.30·coherence + 0.25·precision + 0.15·compression. The published score averages the raw tape exchange scores and shrinks small samples toward the cohort mean, so five great answers can't beat twenty good ones. Produced feed rows count only toward coarse estimates, never toward a full score.

clear all ✕
2exchanges match
2on raw tape
0redirected or not addressed
Answered raw tape D 4 · C 5 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.30

Q along with this, concretely, where are we right now in this evolution? And there's schools of thoughts that can disagree with this, but just simplify things. Machine learning, deep learning as a deeper evolution of machine learning, and then sort of like a full AI on a continuum. Is that sort of a fair way to start looking at it, and where do we kind of stand on that continuum?

A So I, I have a, I have a model which says that, um, you know, AI and machine learning are really quite distinct things. Um, you know, AI is all about, uh, building systems that can In some way, uh, replicate human intelligence or explore the spaces of possible minds, uh, in Murray's phrase, whereas machine learning is a very specific, uh, technique about, uh, building a system that can make predictions and learn from the data itself. So there are AI efforts that have no machine learning in them. I mean, Psyc, uh, CYC is a great example. You know, you try to, uh, catalog all the knowledge in the world, and I think it's, you know, it's, it's the, the, the mindset of the market, uh, to Combine the two, because it, it, it might give, give something more attention.

AI assessment note: “AI and machine learning are really quite distinct things.”

Partly raw tape D 3 · C 4 · P 4 · Cm 4 3.70

Q along with this, concretely, where are we right now in this evolution? And there's schools of thoughts that can disagree with this, but just simplify things. Machine learning, deep learning as a deeper evolution of machine learning, and then sort of like a full AI on a continuum. Is that sort of a fair way to start looking at it, and where do we kind of stand on that continuum?

A So I, I have a, I have a model which says that, um, you know, AI and machine learning are really quite distinct things. Um, you know, AI is all about, uh, building systems that can In some way, uh, replicate human intelligence or explore the spaces of possible minds, uh, in Murray's phrase, whereas machine learning is a very specific, uh, technique about, uh, building a system that can make predictions and learn from the data itself. So there are AI efforts that have no machine learning in them. I mean, Psyc, uh, CYC is a great example. You know, you try to, uh, catalog all the knowledge in the world, and I think it's, you know, it's, it's the, the, the mindset of the market, uh, to Combine the two, because it, it, it might give, give something more attention.

AI assessment note: “AI and machine learning are really quite distinct things.”

page 1
Made with StarZero

Turn any episode into a week of clips.

This entire site, over 1,000 episodes transcribed, diarized, checked and made playable, runs on the StarZero media pipeline. Drop in your own episode and the podcast clipper finds the moments worth sharing, cuts them, captions them, and reframes them for every feed.