Search is not available for this dataset
qid
int64 | question
string | answers
list | date
string | metadata
string |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1
|
<p>Besides being "one of the 7 meta questions every site should ask", it's just plain important. An "AI Stackexchange" site has been tried before, at least once, and possibly a few times. And in the past, it's been killed for lack of activity. :-(</p>
<p>So... how so we promote this site well enough to attract a critical mass of participants? And how do we get people participating? </p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 16,
"Author": "Dawny33",
"AuthorID": 101,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/101",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>As Franck neatly put: First step would be to clearly define the scope of the site.</p>\n\n<p>Next, there are very active Data Science, AI and ML communities on Reddit and other community sites like facebook groups, etc; and they would be an excellent way to get new users.</p>\n\n<p>And as AI is a very hot topic right now, we would be getting traffic and users as long as we keep the scope well pruned and the posts well curated.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 64,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Once we figure out what we're about exactly, we need to haul in some real experts.</p>\n\n<p>This is a good idea right here: <a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/q/22/75\">Can we send messages to young researchers who have recently published papers in artificial intelligence related journals during the private beta?</a> Scholarly papers generally include their authors' e-mail addresses. Papers that don't have e-mails will at least have author names, and some Googling could turn up contact information.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1220,
"Author": "mindcrime",
"AuthorID": 33,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Here's one idea: Search Meetup.com for meetups which are related to artificial intelligence, and post this link to their message boards and / or mailing lists, with a brief note saying \"you may find this of interest\".</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1228,
"Author": "Luis",
"AuthorID": 70,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/70",
"pm_score": 0,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I think that we could try to promote the site with people from a broad range of disciplines. I remember seeing on Area51 what other people committed to, and there were mostly engineering or computer-related sites. Perhaps we need some philosophers, some psychologists, some neuroscientists and linguists here. </p>\n\n<p>Maybe encouraging questions on other sites of the SX-network?</p>\n\n<p>Or social networks posts?</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>I also wanted to add another site which has overlapping topics: <a href=\"https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/\">Cognitive Sciences</a></p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1233,
"Author": "kenorb",
"AuthorID": 8,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"pm_score": 0,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I think Stack Exchange A.I. site is self-promoted and it does not need promotion. We just need a bit more time, that's all. I think this site has enough active experts so far, so our <em>answer ratio</em> is fine (1.8 at the time of writing).</p>\n\n<p>Secondly given Stack Exchange higher ranked <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">SEO</a> abilities, people looking for A.I. answers will quickly find this place. Especially having in mind that A.I. is more likely to be the next big boom for this century, I believe next year we'll hit the <a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1225/8\">site healthy stats</a> without even promoting it.</p>\n\n<p>Although if we decide to promote it, we need to be careful, as promoting this site to the wrong communities, this can result in lot of people asking the broad and opinion based posts.</p>\n\n<p>Artificial promotion isn't a good one, but sharing the AI links to the good answers on relevant forum posts or reddit-like sites is a great start.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/02
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33/"
]
|
4
|
<p>Are all questions asked on stats and data science SE also on topic here? Or is there some rule such as (on-topic in stats or data science SE implies off-topic here)?</p>
<p>Data science and the stats SE already have a huge overlap (>~80%), I am worried to have a third SE that also significantly overlaps with them.</p>
<hr>
<p>As a side note, many other SE have an AI tags, e.g.:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence">https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence</a></li>
<li><a href="https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence">https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence</a> (for the most sci-fi questions)</li>
<li><a href="https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ai.artificial-intel">https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ai.artificial-intel</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence">https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence">https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence</a></li>
<li><a href="https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence">https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence</a></li>
<li><a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence">https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence</a></li>
<li><a href="https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ai">https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ai</a></li>
</ul>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 7,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>No, data science and the implementation of artificial intelligence are off-topic. <a href=\"https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/a/24016/136466\">A community manager explicitly said so in the Area 51 discussions for this site.</a> There have been at least two AI sites on SE before, and they've all failed. We need to bring something new to the table, especially in the private beta stage. Once that's over, we can consider whether we can bring a new viewpoint to such questions.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 8,
"Author": "Luis",
"AuthorID": 70,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/70",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Definitely not. In some minutes we can see lots of questions asking for specific technical solutions about neural networks and genetic algorithms. I agree with Ben that we need to make this site different and start migrating all these questions to other sites, where there <em>is already</em> an answer to most of them.</p>\n\n<p>Why would we want to ask them again?\n(apart from rush for reputation)</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 12,
"Author": "mindcrime",
"AuthorID": 33,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I'm going to say \"yes\". That doesn't mean we need to <em>solicit</em> those kinds of questions, but if / when they show up, I think we should just handle them \"organically\" if you will. That is, up/down vote them, answer them, comment on them, etc., exactly as we would anything else. I don't see any point in us taking on the effort of cross-checking with other sites and migrating questions, etc. IF the SE infrastructure makes it super easy to do some in some cases, then sure, fine, I guess. But I oppose having ai.se mods waste their energy and time dealing with pedantic quibbling over which site is \"most\" appropriate for a question.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 19,
"Author": "Dawny33",
"AuthorID": 101,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/101",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p><strong>Yes</strong></p>\n\n<p>I am sorry to be the one who posts Yes, but as we are in the beta, I want to be straight forward.</p>\n\n<p>In addition to that, AI is also on-topic in the CS site. <a href=\"https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/q/22939/142759\">I was the one who raised this in the definition phase</a>.</p>\n\n<p>So, a lot of topic which this site aims to cover are already covered in the existing sites.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 75,
"Author": "kenorb",
"AuthorID": 8,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p><a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/a/72/8\">@RobertCartaino suggested in this post</a> that:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>"programming" and "implementation problems" be explicitly listed as outside the scope of this site</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>in order to direct the authors to sites which were explicitly created to handle these "technical" issues.</p>\n<p>This site failed already two times, because people didn't ask the right questions and most of them were already covered by somewhere else (e.g. Stack Overflow, Statistics, Data Science, and similar applied sites).</p>\n<p>Basically:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Data Science is an applied site for all the programmers/statisticians/mathematicians who are trying to make this stuff work.</p>\n<p>a more-comprehensive site which included the development of AI, machine learning, statistical tools, big data, NLP, data mining, etc,</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>so:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>No, machine learning as far as implementation goes is not on topic for this site.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>and:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>if this site were to simply start reiterating the implementation/tools questions that are already covered elsewhere, this site will not likely make it out of private beta.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<hr />\n<p>On the <a href=\"https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/24014/will-machine-learning-be-considered-as-on-topic/24016#comment38287_24016\">other hand</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Everything in the proposal is considered when evaluating whether the site would likely be viable. If the proposal looks good across the board, that is the "compelling case"</p>\n</blockquote>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1119,
"Author": "kenorb",
"AuthorID": 8,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I believe questions asked at <a href=\"https://stats.stackexchange.com/\">Stats.SE</a> about <a href=\"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence\">artificial intelligence</a> should be on-topic here as well, because:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>since past 6 years there were only <a href=\"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence\">~73 questions asked about AI</a>, 1/3 of them still <a href=\"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence?sort=unanswered\">unanswered</a>,</li>\n<li>40% of question about <a href=\"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/machine-learning\">machine-learning</a> are also <a href=\"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/machine-learning?sort=unanswered\">unanswered</a>, try scrolling.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>You may suggest they may lacking of AI experts there, so lets move there. However not all AI experts are using or are interested in statistics models with AI.</p>\n\n<p>For example I'm no where near as statistician, I've no idea about cross-validation aka rotation estimation models, but I may use and implement practical AI algorithms.</p>\n\n<p>Therefore I think our site has already its own distinct and unique scope in comparison to Stats.SE, because it is about pure Artificial Intelligence and beyond.</p>\n\n<p>You can still asks about AI at Stats.SE, but it should be focused to <em>statistical learning</em>. To support that, <a href=\"https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2095/12989\">check this post</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Question on AI including a comparison with statistical learning would be pretty clearly on topic here.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>They were accepting even without that, but I think most likely because people didn't have the right place to ask. If they've asked, didn't have much attention (maybe AI experts aren't interested in statistical models).</p>\n\n<p>If you've question about theoretical AI, you can consider asking at: <a href=\"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ai.artificial-intel\">CSTheory.SE</a> (not active either).</p>\n\n<p>We can only hope that after <a href=\"http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/12/no-artificial-intelligence-in-area-51/\">6 years</a> of previous failures, we're able to break some ice this time.</p>\n\n<p>We've one-time final opportunity to not have AI spread across the whole network:</p>\n\n<p>Stats.SE, CSTheory.SE, CogSci.SE, Philosophy.SE, Worldbuilding.SE, SO.SE, CS.SE, HSM.SE, Robotics.SE, GameDev.SE, gosh where else, with no real AI experts in one place.</p>\n\n<p>So basically the goal of this site is as pointed by <a href=\"https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11658/faked-artificial-intelligence-like-in-game-development#comment18885_11709\">@lejlot</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>To bring people from this one particular field, which exists in\n between all above in one place. I see the reason behind it - as now\n questions regarding AI are scattered across these sites and get very\n little attention from actual experts, who also visit just a subset of\n these. Additionally - on each site these questions are tagged in a\n different way, so it is impossible to track them. Unification (new\n site) would make all of it much easier (and in fact - possible for the\n first time).</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>If this going to fail this time, people still will have to have 10-20 different accounts to ask the right questions on the right sites (which is very inconvenient). This would be very sad. </p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>To summary, <a href=\"https://www.quora.com/I-once-heard-statistical-learning-is-not-the-path-to-AI-Artificial-Intelligence-what-are-the-arguments-that-support-this-statement-claim\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">some say</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>statistical learning is not the path to AI (Artificial Intelligence)</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>but it's open to debate.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/02
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
]
|
5
|
<p>I've seen several questions that use the <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'artificial-intelligence'" rel="tag">artificial-intelligence</a> tag, sometimes as the only tag on the question. That is not useful for categorizing questions, so please don't add this to your question. </p>
<p>For this reason, the site name is usually blacklisted as tag name. </p>
<ul>
<li>So the <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bug" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'bug'" rel="tag">bug</a> is: Why isn't <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'artificial-intelligence'" rel="tag">artificial-intelligence</a> blacklisted?</li>
<li>The <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/feature-request" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'feature-request'" rel="tag">feature-request</a> is: Please blacklist <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'artificial-intelligence'" rel="tag">artificial-intelligence</a>.</li>
</ul>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 7,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>No, data science and the implementation of artificial intelligence are off-topic. <a href=\"https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/a/24016/136466\">A community manager explicitly said so in the Area 51 discussions for this site.</a> There have been at least two AI sites on SE before, and they've all failed. We need to bring something new to the table, especially in the private beta stage. Once that's over, we can consider whether we can bring a new viewpoint to such questions.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 8,
"Author": "Luis",
"AuthorID": 70,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/70",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Definitely not. In some minutes we can see lots of questions asking for specific technical solutions about neural networks and genetic algorithms. I agree with Ben that we need to make this site different and start migrating all these questions to other sites, where there <em>is already</em> an answer to most of them.</p>\n\n<p>Why would we want to ask them again?\n(apart from rush for reputation)</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 12,
"Author": "mindcrime",
"AuthorID": 33,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I'm going to say \"yes\". That doesn't mean we need to <em>solicit</em> those kinds of questions, but if / when they show up, I think we should just handle them \"organically\" if you will. That is, up/down vote them, answer them, comment on them, etc., exactly as we would anything else. I don't see any point in us taking on the effort of cross-checking with other sites and migrating questions, etc. IF the SE infrastructure makes it super easy to do some in some cases, then sure, fine, I guess. But I oppose having ai.se mods waste their energy and time dealing with pedantic quibbling over which site is \"most\" appropriate for a question.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 19,
"Author": "Dawny33",
"AuthorID": 101,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/101",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p><strong>Yes</strong></p>\n\n<p>I am sorry to be the one who posts Yes, but as we are in the beta, I want to be straight forward.</p>\n\n<p>In addition to that, AI is also on-topic in the CS site. <a href=\"https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/q/22939/142759\">I was the one who raised this in the definition phase</a>.</p>\n\n<p>So, a lot of topic which this site aims to cover are already covered in the existing sites.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 75,
"Author": "kenorb",
"AuthorID": 8,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p><a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/a/72/8\">@RobertCartaino suggested in this post</a> that:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>"programming" and "implementation problems" be explicitly listed as outside the scope of this site</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>in order to direct the authors to sites which were explicitly created to handle these "technical" issues.</p>\n<p>This site failed already two times, because people didn't ask the right questions and most of them were already covered by somewhere else (e.g. Stack Overflow, Statistics, Data Science, and similar applied sites).</p>\n<p>Basically:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Data Science is an applied site for all the programmers/statisticians/mathematicians who are trying to make this stuff work.</p>\n<p>a more-comprehensive site which included the development of AI, machine learning, statistical tools, big data, NLP, data mining, etc,</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>so:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>No, machine learning as far as implementation goes is not on topic for this site.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>and:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>if this site were to simply start reiterating the implementation/tools questions that are already covered elsewhere, this site will not likely make it out of private beta.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<hr />\n<p>On the <a href=\"https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/24014/will-machine-learning-be-considered-as-on-topic/24016#comment38287_24016\">other hand</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Everything in the proposal is considered when evaluating whether the site would likely be viable. If the proposal looks good across the board, that is the "compelling case"</p>\n</blockquote>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1119,
"Author": "kenorb",
"AuthorID": 8,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I believe questions asked at <a href=\"https://stats.stackexchange.com/\">Stats.SE</a> about <a href=\"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence\">artificial intelligence</a> should be on-topic here as well, because:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>since past 6 years there were only <a href=\"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence\">~73 questions asked about AI</a>, 1/3 of them still <a href=\"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence?sort=unanswered\">unanswered</a>,</li>\n<li>40% of question about <a href=\"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/machine-learning\">machine-learning</a> are also <a href=\"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/machine-learning?sort=unanswered\">unanswered</a>, try scrolling.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>You may suggest they may lacking of AI experts there, so lets move there. However not all AI experts are using or are interested in statistics models with AI.</p>\n\n<p>For example I'm no where near as statistician, I've no idea about cross-validation aka rotation estimation models, but I may use and implement practical AI algorithms.</p>\n\n<p>Therefore I think our site has already its own distinct and unique scope in comparison to Stats.SE, because it is about pure Artificial Intelligence and beyond.</p>\n\n<p>You can still asks about AI at Stats.SE, but it should be focused to <em>statistical learning</em>. To support that, <a href=\"https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2095/12989\">check this post</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Question on AI including a comparison with statistical learning would be pretty clearly on topic here.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>They were accepting even without that, but I think most likely because people didn't have the right place to ask. If they've asked, didn't have much attention (maybe AI experts aren't interested in statistical models).</p>\n\n<p>If you've question about theoretical AI, you can consider asking at: <a href=\"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ai.artificial-intel\">CSTheory.SE</a> (not active either).</p>\n\n<p>We can only hope that after <a href=\"http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/12/no-artificial-intelligence-in-area-51/\">6 years</a> of previous failures, we're able to break some ice this time.</p>\n\n<p>We've one-time final opportunity to not have AI spread across the whole network:</p>\n\n<p>Stats.SE, CSTheory.SE, CogSci.SE, Philosophy.SE, Worldbuilding.SE, SO.SE, CS.SE, HSM.SE, Robotics.SE, GameDev.SE, gosh where else, with no real AI experts in one place.</p>\n\n<p>So basically the goal of this site is as pointed by <a href=\"https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11658/faked-artificial-intelligence-like-in-game-development#comment18885_11709\">@lejlot</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>To bring people from this one particular field, which exists in\n between all above in one place. I see the reason behind it - as now\n questions regarding AI are scattered across these sites and get very\n little attention from actual experts, who also visit just a subset of\n these. Additionally - on each site these questions are tagged in a\n different way, so it is impossible to track them. Unification (new\n site) would make all of it much easier (and in fact - possible for the\n first time).</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>If this going to fail this time, people still will have to have 10-20 different accounts to ask the right questions on the right sites (which is very inconvenient). This would be very sad. </p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>To summary, <a href=\"https://www.quora.com/I-once-heard-statistical-learning-is-not-the-path-to-AI-Artificial-Intelligence-what-are-the-arguments-that-support-this-statement-claim\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">some say</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>statistical learning is not the path to AI (Artificial Intelligence)</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>but it's open to debate.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/02
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29/"
]
|
11
|
<p>I'm seeing a lot of answers from people along the lines of "AI is just bits and bytes and ultimately cannot be smarter than its creator because its creator would have to use their brain to make something smarter than themselves, which isn't possible."</p>
<p>It's kind of baffling to me to see these answers, especially in regards to the singularity, on a forum dedicated to AI. There is already image recognition that can recognize objects more accurately than humans, IBM's Watson can diagnose lung cancer at a rate much more accurately than human physicians, and Google's Alpha Go beat the Go world champion, even while experts were predicting that AI wouldn't succeed at doing this for another 10 years.</p>
<p>At the same time, I am completely certain that any of the individual programmers of Alpha Go would not have succeeded in defeating the Go champion of the world. I'm also fairly certain that the Watson programmers would not do better than Watson or a human physician at identifying lung cancer. These are already cases of the AI being more intelligent than its programmer, albeit in domain-specific cases.</p>
<p>Therefore, it seems wholly lazy and uncreative for people to provide such answers that AI cannot be more intelligent than a single creator and therefore human-level AI and beyond is not possible. I think it does not contribute to the discussion.</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 13,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": true,
"text": "<p>If an answer is wrong, it should be downvoted, plain and simple. Clearly we want to discourage wrong information, and downvotes are designed to point out incorrect, irrelevant, or otherwise poor content. You seem to have really good examples that show such answers are wrong, so please feel free to mention them in a comment when downvoting!</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 47,
"Author": "Left SE On 10_6_19",
"AuthorID": 181,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/181",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<blockquote>\n <p>I'm seeing a lot of answers from people along the lines of \"AI is just bits and bytes and ultimately cannot be smarter than its creator because its creator would have to use their brain to make something smarter than themselves, which isn't possible.\"</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I think this argument is a bit unclear and needs some refinement. It is true that AI can indeed be smarter than the creator at certain tasks (AlphaGo being better at Go than the programmers of AlphaGo, for instance). What I think this argument is really saying is:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>\"AI is just bits and bytes programmed by its creator. The creator would be able to <em>know</em> how the AI works, otherwise he would be unable to create it in the first place. Therefore, the creator can be said to be <em>superior</em> to that of its creation, since the creator can understand its creation.\"</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>That seems like a more logical premise. Sure, AlphaGo is better at Go than the programmers of AlphaGo, but AlphaGo's programmers actually knows how AlphaGo operates. This type of argument was made in the paper <a href=\"http://kryten.mm.rpi.edu/lovelace.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\">Creativity, the Turing Test, and the (better) Lovelace Test</a>, which specifically argues that AIs cannot be creative since programmers are able to figure out what their creations (AIs) are doing. Another paper <a href=\"http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.6142v3.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\">\"The Lovelace 2.0 Test of Artificial Creativity and Intelligence\"</a> saw this argument as so self-evidently true that it tried to create a weaker version of the Lovelace Test to identify and measure AI creativity.</p>\n\n<p>The programmers, basically, know how their program works. That doesn't mean the program is less intelligent than the programmers. Just that the programmers can understand why their programs behave the way they do, given enough time and patience.</p>\n\n<p>Either way, I would not support discouraging answers such as these, if only because this view does have support within the AI scholarly community. If you have experts who hold this view, then we should let this view be given exposure.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/02
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/56/"
]
|
18
|
<p>The latter is the canonical way to refer to the field, and its unclear when, if ever, [deep-network] would be preferable. Its a small change, but it'd help avoid very odd sounding questions like <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/96/109">"What is Deep Network?"</a></p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 23,
"Author": "mindcrime",
"AuthorID": 33,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I would say yes. I don't know many people who use the term \"deep network\" like that. You may hear \"deep neural network\", but that's still basically synonymous with \"deep learning\" as far as I can tell.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 37,
"Author": "WilliamKF",
"AuthorID": 55,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/55",
"pm_score": 1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>If <code>deep-learning</code> is preferred, then <code>deep-network</code> should be set up as a <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/70718/135236\">tag synonym</a> for it, that way if anyone tries to use it, it gets mapped to the preferred name. We need someone with 1250 reputation to do that.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/02
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/109/"
]
|
22
|
<p>During the private beta we have the opportunity to send Emails via stack exchange:<br>
<a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/2c4CE.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/2c4CE.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a><br>
And because stackexchange is already well-known on the net, it is more probable that our invitation will be read and clicked on. And I don't think there would be any academic mail server which rejects mail sent by the domain stackexchange.com.
As you know <a href="http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=1702" rel="nofollow noreferrer">there are a lot of artificial intelligence related journals</a>, I want to see if it is useful or allowed to use the emails of some of those young researchers who have published papers in this journals recently and introduce them this new site?<br>
Because my friends or the people that I have met directly will always notice the emails sent by me personally but a stranger may consider it a spam.</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 24,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Certainly, asking real AI researchers to join would be great!</p>\n\n<p>Paper authors include their e-mail addresses in their publications exactly for the purpose of being contacted about their work. I'm sure it would bring most students great happiness to know that their work has been noticed.</p>\n\n<p>Students who aren't terribly busy will probably be willing to read all the e-mails they receive in their academic/professional e-mail inboxes, no matter whether the messages from from an <code>@stackexchange.com</code> address or a personal address. Indeed, composing a personal (non-automated) message mentioning how you enjoyed a paper would be appreciated, even if the person doesn't have the time or inclination to check out our site.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 26,
"Author": "mindcrime",
"AuthorID": 33,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Yes, that sounds like an excellent idea to me. </p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1076,
"Author": "Franck Dernoncourt",
"AuthorID": 4,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Technically I guess you could, but I think it would be fair to add some warnings such as the site might closed, and questions on Stack Exchange are sometimes deleted or closed for moderation reason. </p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/02
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/19/"
]
|
27
|
<p>I asked a question that was meant to discuss artificial intelligence in general. I tagged it <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'artificial-intelligence'" rel="tag">artificial-intelligence</a>, and someone fairly pointed out that that's redundant. I changed it to <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/agi" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'agi'" rel="tag">agi</a>, because the question referred specifically to how <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/optimization" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'optimization'" rel="tag">optimization</a> applies to artificial intelligence, but I'm not sure that was right.</p>
<p>Should the <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/agi" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'agi'" rel="tag">agi</a> tag refer only to questions that reference Artificial General Intelligence specifically, or can it be used for questions that could be related to AGI in more indirect ways? </p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 29,
"Author": "Rory Alsop",
"AuthorID": 97,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/97",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'artificial-intelligence'\" rel=\"tag\">artificial-intelligence</a> is what SE calls an <strong>intrinsic</strong> tag, as is <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ai\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'ai'\" rel=\"tag\">ai</a>.</p>\n\n<p>Intrinsic tags are effectively pointless tags on a site, ie this site is about artificial intelligence, so does not need a tag on artificial intelligence. Likewise, <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/programming\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'programming'\" rel=\"tag\">programming</a> is not needed on Programming.SE</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/optimization\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'optimization'\" rel=\"tag\">optimization</a> is much more relevant, as it is a specific class of questions within the site scope.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 57,
"Author": "Pimgd",
"AuthorID": 74,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/74",
"pm_score": 1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>AGI stands for Artificial General Intelligence, which is an AI that's powerful enough to be applied in general. A human would be an AGI, so to say - the human is generally applicable. So when your question is about such an AI - one that is not made for one specific task, but instead for things in general - where you'd need an AI that can think and learn as it goes - to deal with moving goalposts - that's the sort of question you'd use <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/agi\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'agi'\" rel=\"tag\">agi</a> for.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/02
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/27",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/46/"
]
|
35
|
<p>I was going to answer a question about reinforcement learning and wanted to show some formulas using the same notation I use on CrossValidated, for instance:</p>
<p>$r_{t+1}+\gamma \max_a Q(s_{t+1},a)$</p>
<p>But it is currently not supported, at least the way I tried it. Can we have support for LaTeX formatting here?</p>
<p>Examples:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/157">What artificial intelligence strategies are useful for summarization?</a></li>
</ul>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 36,
"Author": "wythagoras",
"AuthorID": 29,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>While it might be nice to have for some questions, most questions you would need LaTeX for should be off-topic here. This site is not meant for machine learning questions, as Cross Validated and Data Science Stack Exchange sufficiently cover those subjects. </p>\n\n<p>See: <a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4/are-all-questions-asked-on-stats-and-data-science-se-also-on-topic-here?cb=1\">Are all questions asked on stats and data science SE also on topic here?</a></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><strong>Note:</strong> I posted this answer when I didn't know very much about AI, and I have misunderstood or missed some of the parts of AI that should be on-topic here, I am now of the opinion that we should have LaTeX here. I'll leave this answer here because of the votes (and vote balance) on it, but I don't agree myself anymore with it. So please count an extra downvote from me.</p>\n</blockquote>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1084,
"Author": "Harsh",
"AuthorID": 130,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/130",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I think we should discourage the use of LaTeX, but should allow it. Our goal is to attract experts in AI, and the language of AI (today) is math. Like that post in the OP (which I wrote, btw), I think math makes a lot of concepts easier to understand. </p>\n\n<p>I think this SE should focus on the <em>design</em> aspects of AI and AI research instead of the programming and libraries (those questions should go to Data Science) or the statistics (those should go to Cross Validated), but some mathematics is often a core component of AI theory.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1171,
"Author": "mindcrime",
"AuthorID": 33,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Yes, absolutely. Regardless of your position on the whole \"theory vs. implementation\" thing, math is an essential part of AI and having convenient access to LaTex would be a boon here. </p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1319,
"Author": "nbro",
"AuthorID": 2444,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/2444",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Here are several questions and answers that would benefit from MathJax support on this website. These are just a few examples I've found in a 5 minutes search. Nevertheless, I think this number is enough to justify a MathJax support on this website.</p>\n<h3>Questions</h3>\n<ul>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/4710/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/2994/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/4085/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/3758/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/4740/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/4296/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/4140/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/2226/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/2865/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/3458/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/113/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/5580/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/13577/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/5075/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/8240/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/3226/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/5527/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/6009/2444\">Minimum number of perceptrons for an n-bit truth table?</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/5638/2444\">Hand computing feed forward and back propagation of neural network</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/5606/2444\">A few doubts on back propagation</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/5332/2444\">How to implement exploration function and learning rate in Q Learning</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/5825/2444\">Why don't ELUs multiply the linear portion by α?</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/6366/2444\">Genetic Algorithm - creatures in 2d world are not learning</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/20053/2444\">How to perform back propagation with different sized layers?</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/2462/2444\">How to determine the probability of an "existence" question</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/2863/2444\">Translate English Sentences into First-Order Logic without quantifiers</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/3040/2444\">GA rule discovery fitness function</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/9226/2444\">Steps for final Logistic Regression Modal</a></p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<h3>Answers</h3>\n<ul>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/1927/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/4227/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/2292/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/4185/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/4388/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/3906/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/267/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/3162/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/6280/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/5620/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/5079/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/2300/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/4479/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/5597/2444</s> (post deleted)</p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/6983/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/13216/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/3507/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/13681/2444</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/27411/2444\">https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/27411/2444</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/17651/2444\">https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/17651/2444</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/6323/2444\">https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/6323/2444</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/6628/2444\">https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/6628/2444</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/5607/2444\">https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/5607/2444</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/5334/2444\">https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/5334/2444</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/6172/2444\">https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/6172/2444</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/20899/2444\">https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/20899/2444</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/3510/2444\">https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/3510/2444</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/2546/2444\">https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/2546/2444</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/6017/2444\">https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/6017/2444</a></p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1322,
"Author": "Matt Cremeens",
"AuthorID": 12544,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/12544",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I, for one, would love its inclusion. I do not believe it is possible to divorce AI from mathematics on many levels. For instance, I wanted to ask a question regarding the use of backpropagation with regards to the ANFIS model but had to do so in a clumsy way as I was not able to include the proper notation for partial derivatives. It would surprise me to think that this site is just for \"high level\" philosophical discussions on AI.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1369,
"Author": "DukeZhou",
"AuthorID": 1671,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1671",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p><strong>Starting a new list of math questions to expand on <a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1319/1671\">nbro's list</a>:</strong></p>\n<ul>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/6633/back-propagation-in-nn-with-sigmoid-activation-function-division-by-0</s> (post deleted)</p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/5057/k-armed-bandit-and-reinforcement-learning</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/7032/1671</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/7147/gradient-of-boltzmann-policy-over-reward-function</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/7182/small-multinomial-naive-bayes-text-classification-probabilities</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/7207/mathematical-modelling-of-a-i-algorithms</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/6308/linucb-with-hybrid-linear-models</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><s>https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/1925/are-ffnn-mlp-lipschitz-functions</s></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/6914/how-does-this-sigma-workharris-algorithm\">How does this sigma work?(Harris algorithm)</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/6640/defining-formula-for-fuzzy-equation\">Defining formula for fuzzy equation</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/6030/how-to-calculate-gradient-of-filter-in-convolution-network\">How to calculate gradient of filter in convolution network</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/5380/2444\">https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/5380/2444</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/5179/2444\">https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/5179/2444</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/6995/simple-question-about-hs-algorithms-formuloptical-flow\">Simple question about HS algorithm's formul(Optical flow)</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/7034/1671\">https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/7034/1671</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/7003/1671\">Why do we have to solve MDP in each iteration of Maximum Entropy Inverse Reinforcement Learning?</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/6990/matrix-dimension-for-linear-regression-coefficients\">Matrix Dimension for Linear regression coefficients</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/7103/2444\">https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/7103/2444</a></p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1383,
"Author": "Neil Slater",
"AuthorID": 1847,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1847",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I would like to add to the calls for LaTeX support with a specific topic. </p>\n\n<p>In my opinion, the AI Stack Exchange should be <strong>the</strong> home for questions about <em>Reinforcement Learning</em>.</p>\n\n<p>RL questions actually appear in larger numbers on Data Science and Cross Validated Stack Exchange sites. That makes little sense to me, when AI, robotics and other better homes in a conceptual sense exist for this topic.</p>\n\n<p>RL is a technical subject requiring solid understanding of underlying maths, especially for anyone wanting to engage in algorithm design. I would like to be able to write equations and maths-based pseudo code when writing questions or answers about RL. It is a shame that this site presents a barrier to doing that. Along with the larger audience for other Stack Exchange sites, this one is losing out IMO on a current hot topic that could provide much traffic. And in part that is due to barriers when writing content.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/02
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/35",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/144/"
]
|
38
|
<p>We have a <a href="//chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/43371/artificial-intelligence">chatroom</a>. At the moment it doesn't really have a name. Other sites' chatroom names include:</p>
<ul>
<li>Super User's "Root Access"</li>
<li>PPCG's "The Nineteenth Byte"</li>
<li>Blender's "The Renderfarm"</li>
<li>Pets' "The Litterbox"</li>
<li>Travel's "You Are Here"</li>
<li>Aviation's "The Hangar"</li>
</ul>
<p>So, what should we call ours?</p>
<p>While we're at it, what should we name our resident feed bots (Main and Meta)?</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 39,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": false,
"text": "<h1>Turing Testing Room</h1>\n\n<p>A play on the term \"Turing test\" (an examination of how well a machine mimics natural conversation with a human): tests taken by human students are usually administered in a testing room.</p>\n\n<p>Questions on the main site are currently posted to the ticker, so we don't see the username, but if that's changed, it could be called <strong><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivac\" rel=\"nofollow\">Multivac</a></strong> after the computer from some of Asimov's stories. We could call the meta bot <strong><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_(computer)\" rel=\"nofollow\">Watson</a></strong>.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 41,
"Author": "kenorb",
"AuthorID": 8,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<h1>Automata</h1>\n\n<p>Study of abstract machines as well as the computational problems that can be solved using them.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 42,
"Author": "kenorb",
"AuthorID": 8,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<h1>The Thought</h1>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Artificial intelligence is based on the assumption that the process of human <strong>thought</strong> can be mechanized.</p>\n</blockquote>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 43,
"Author": "Rory Alsop",
"AuthorID": 97,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/97",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": false,
"text": "<h2><strong>The Singularity</strong></h2>\n\n<p>I probably don't need to explain that :-)</p>\n\n<p>And for the bots, how about Daneel and Giskard?</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 44,
"Author": "dynrepsys",
"AuthorID": 46,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/46",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<h1>Searle's Room</h1>\n\n<p>Bots: Meta & Cognition</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 48,
"Author": "Dawny33",
"AuthorID": 101,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/101",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<h1><strong>The nth layer</strong></h1>\n<p>This would be about deep learning which is about multiple layers of neurons. So, as DL has been very hot in the domain currently, I think this name would be appropriate.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 49,
"Author": "Eric Platon",
"AuthorID": 169,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<h1>Replicants</h1>\n\n<p>As in Blade Runner. And HAL and Computer for the bots.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 50,
"Author": "Cem Kalyoncu",
"AuthorID": 210,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p><strong>Electric sheep</strong></p>\n\n<p>I think everyone knows this, just in case: <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_Sheep%3F\" rel=\"nofollow\">wiki link</a></p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 51,
"Author": "S.L. Barth",
"AuthorID": 66,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/66",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": false,
"text": "<h1>The Chinese Room</h1>\n<p>A reference to the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Chinese Room Argument</a>.</p>\n<p>We would need to make it clear that we're separate from <a href=\"https://chinese.stackexchange.com\">Chinese.SE</a> though...!</p>\n<p>One of the bots could be named Searle, who invented the thought experiment.<br />\nThen we really have a Searle getting inputs and producing outputs, just as in the thought experiment.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 52,
"Author": "S.L. Barth",
"AuthorID": 66,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/66",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<h2>Back Propagation</h2>\n<p>A reference to backpropagation neural networks. We could use this name because in our chatroom, ideas will be propagated back and forth.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1086,
"Author": "kenorb",
"AuthorID": 8,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"pm_score": 1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<h3>The early stopping</h3>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Form of regularization used to avoid overfitting when training.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>See: <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/16/8\">What is early stopping?</a></p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1088,
"Author": "kenorb",
"AuthorID": 8,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"pm_score": 0,
"selected": false,
"text": "<h1>The Dropout</h1>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>A technique of reducing overfitting in neural networks. The term \"dropout\" refers to dropping out units in a neural network.</p>\n</blockquote>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/02
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/38",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/125/"
]
|
40
|
<p>A core goal of the private beta is to generate high-quality content that will attract experts. We are also given the opportunity to invite experts by email to the private beta. My question is simple: exactly what kind of experts are we trying to attract?</p>
<p>According to <a href="https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4/are-all-questions-asked-on-stats-and-data-science-se-also-on-topic-here?cb=1"> this question </a>, data science and the <em>implementation</em> of artificial intelligence are off-topic. The problem is that we don't want to become a duplicate of Stats or Data Science SE. The question links to <a href="https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/24014/will-machine-learning-be-considered-as-on-topic/24016#24016">this answer</a> on Area 51 which says that this site is for questions in the "academic humanities arena". This seems to suggest that we want experts in academic humanities.</p>
<p>However, most experts in the field of artificial intelligence <em>are experts of implementation</em>. They are applied mathematicians and computer scientists who are trying to make artificial intelligence a reality. The recent advances in artificial intelligence, like <a href="https://deepmind.com/alpha-go" rel="nofollow noreferrer"> Alpha Go</a>, have been the result of breakthroughs in implementation.</p>
<p>If this site is about humanities-style questions about Artificial Intelligence, then what appeal does it have to the type of people who created Alpha Go, who are primarily computer scientists and mathematicians? I'm not convinced they have special expertise about the ramifications of Artifical Intelligence on human society, politics, law, etc.</p>
<p>Perhaps we need to redefine what this site is about. I think a place to look for inspiration is Math SE and MathOverflow. One is about mathematics at any level, while the other is a site for research level mathematicians. Maybe Artificial Intelligence SE should be to Data Science SE and Stats SE what MathOverflow is to Math SE. That is, it should be a site about tackling research level AI problems with the tools of data science and statistics. </p>
<p>This means that we'll have to seriously elevate the quality of our questions and answers to attract real AI experts. But at least we'll have experts to attract.</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 45,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>First up, when I posted <a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7/75\">my answer to the question you reference</a>, I was just passing along the information given to us by Robert Cartaino. I'm not wedded to that opinion.</p>\n\n<p>I think all the scientists working on AI would be helpful here even though we're not working on implementation. This is what the original Area 51 Discussion post said (excerpted):</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Data Science is an <em>applied</em> site for all the programmers/statisticians/mathematicians who are trying to make this stuff <em>work</em>.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>There's some leeway there. Specifically, technical questions seem to be OK, as long as they're not super in depth about the math or programming. There are also \"why\" questions (as opposed to \"how\") that are very interesting and educational. I like <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/92/75\">this question</a> a lot. Scientists are welcome.</p>\n\n<p>We don't <em>have</em> to limit ourselves to the philosophy and practical effects of AI, though they're in scope. Philosophers are welcome too.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 46,
"Author": "Eric Platon",
"AuthorID": 169,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": true,
"text": "<p>First there is a need to distinguish modeling from implementation. They are not exactly the same, although strongly related. This was a very difficult lesson to learn among mathematicians and early programmers, notably in the 70s (mathematical proofs can demand a lot of non-trivial programming work to make them \"computable\", as in runnable on a computer).</p>\n\n<p>As for Machine Learning (by far the most active AI category), modeling belongs to Data Science SE---perhaps the one thing that most people agree on. Implementation should be out of there, as the issues and focus differ (but again, they are related).</p>\n\n<p>Now, should implementation issues be in AI SE, or StackOverflow? The recurring example is TensorFlow, who's home page states that questions should go to StackOverflow. And we should respect that...</p>\n\n<p>But we should keep in mind that the TensorFlow team will choose SO, because it is the largest community, and because the team has something else to do rather than experimenting with hardly visible communities. Well, size matters. We may think that if AI SE becomes big enough on the implementation side, the TensorFlow team (and other major frameworks) may move actually.</p>\n\n<p>In fact, I think now that implementation questions would benefit from a dedicated site (my view has evolved since the Area 51 definition phase). I have replied and tried to reply to several SO questions related to ML tools, and I think some are out of place compared to other questions. For example, <a href=\"https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38321024/why-this-simple-tensorflow-code-is-not-successful-convnetjs-using-tensorflow/38368469#comment64172189_38368469\">some</a> TensorFlow questions are not really programming questions, and not really framework questions. I mean, there is background knowledge on graph construction and execution, as well as background knowledge about statistics and probabilities that are really necessary to make meaningful contributions.</p>\n\n<p>This is not to say that <em>all</em> questions are out of place on SO. <a href=\"https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38297581/tensorflow-gpu-utilization-is-almost-always-at-0#comment64124967_38297581\">Some</a> are <em>really</em> framework issues or (Python) programming issues, and they are good there.</p>\n\n<p>Based on this opinion, I think the site should be interested in implementation experts, whether they work on ML or Expert Systems (or both?).</p>\n\n<p>See also some threads on Area 51 like <a href=\"https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/23789/the-example-questions-will-not-attract-experts\">this one</a> and <a href=\"https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/a/23528/69948\">this one</a>.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 73,
"Author": "mindcrime",
"AuthorID": 33,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"pm_score": -1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>For FSM's sake, not this again. Please, no... stop with the \"let's attract experts\" verbiage. I mean, don't get me wrong.. of course we <em>want</em> experts, but we don't want <em>only</em> experts and we don't want to anoint \"experts\" with some special degree of relevance. This is a HUGE part of what made it so hard to have a successful ai.se before... we chased away the good, in pursuit of the perfect. </p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/02
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/40",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/127/"
]
|
53
|
<p>Is it AI or A.I., or both abbreviations are fine? Basically, with the dots or without?</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 56,
"Author": "Marqin",
"AuthorID": 215,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/215",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>In British English it has to be \"AI\". \nIn American English it can be both \"AI\" and \"A.I.\".</p>\n\n<p>Sources:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/punctuation-in-abbreviations-american\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/punctuation-in-abbreviations-american</a></li>\n<li>Oxford A–Z of Grammar and Punctuation by John Seely.</li>\n<li><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_stop#Abbreviations_and_personal_titles_of_address\" rel=\"nofollow\">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_stop#Abbreviations_and_personal_titles_of_address</a></li>\n</ul>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 65,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>To be honest, I've never seen it written \"A.I.\", but both look fine to me. If somebody wants to use the dots, more power to them. As Marqin showed, it's kind of dependent on whether a person is using British or American English. Suggested edits that only change stylistic things like this should be rejected; let the post author choose as long as it's consistent within a post. </p>\n\n<p>If there is ever a similar question about tag names, the official policy is that the American style should be used. (SE is an American company.)</p>\n\n<p>Source: <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/23873/295684\">Meta Stack Exchange</a></p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/03
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/53",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/"
]
|
54
|
<p>There are two tags: <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-computers" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'quantum-computers'" rel="tag">quantum-computers</a> and <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-computing" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'quantum-computing'" rel="tag">quantum-computing</a>. Some question were moved from computing to computers.</p>
<p>Which tag should be the main one?</p>
<p>I think 'quantum computers' sounds more like hardware questions, and 'quantum computing' is a verb which is about using quantum computers for computation.</p>
<p>Which tag should be used then for asking AI questions? Or make another the synonym of it?</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 58,
"Author": "Pimgd",
"AuthorID": 74,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/74",
"pm_score": 1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I'd (personally) go for <strong>computing</strong> because it is about doing things with computers rather than the computers themselves, as you state in the question yourself.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 70,
"Author": "Robert Cartaino",
"AuthorID": 95,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/95",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": true,
"text": "<p>I consolidated the tags to <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quantum-computing\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'quantum-computing'\" rel=\"tag\">quantum-computing</a> because this is not an <em>applied</em> hardware and programming site. </p>\n\n<p>A tag synonym isn't really appropriate here. Synonyms were intended to link two completely separate words meaning essentially the same thing (think 'car' vs 'auto'). For simple variations on the <em>same</em> word, there's no need to bulk up the tag listings with every word inflection. Text completion will help guide the user to the correct usage:</p>\n\n<p><kbd>q</kbd><kbd>u</kbd><kbd>a</kbd><kbd>n</kbd> → <kbd>quantum-computing</kbd></p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/03
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/54",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/"
]
|
55
|
<p>AI is a bloated term---we are facing this since day 1 of the definition stage. There are already quite a few questions going beyond the original (blurry) boundary of the proposal, notably on implementation issues.</p>
<p>But the worst problem seems to be the lack of objectivity in answers, and sometimes in questions too.</p>
<p>I will single out this <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/111/how-would-self-driving-cars-make-ethical-decisions-about-who-to-kill">question</a> at time of reading, but there are already several like this one.</p>
<p>We must avoid too many threads that lack objectivity. I intend to vote down answers that are too subjective (but, well, I cannot down vote infinitely, as you know), and comment as necessary. Scalability issue, even in this private beta.</p>
<p>What would be the best way to proceed?</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 60,
"Author": "wythagoras",
"AuthorID": 29,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>The question you link is a perfectly valid question in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Philosophy is the other large part of AI, together with technology, so they should be on-topic here.</p>\n\n<p>However, one should be careful when answering these questions, that one does not base the answer on own opinions. One should reference what philosophers have said in the past, like one of the answers on the question you link mentions the Trolley problem.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 66,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>During this private beta, you actually can downvote infinitely - the minimum rep for that privilege in this stage is 1. I think we're still subject to the <a href=\"https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/03/important-reputation-rule-changes/\">\"upvote one thing for every two things you downvote\"</a> rule, though, but that shouldn't be limiting, especially considering you have to have cast 300 votes before it takes effect.</p>\n\n<p>It looks like you've already figured out what to do with nonconstructive answers and questions: downvote. For answers, you'll take a little hit of 1 point, but if it means saving the site from drivel, that's a fine price to pay. Questions that can <em>only</em> be answered subjectively can be closed as primarily opinion-based.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1152,
"Author": "mindcrime",
"AuthorID": 33,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"pm_score": -1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>If you don't like a question, down-vote it. That said, I disagree with the premise that there's a problem and \"ZOMG, s0meth1ng mus7 b3 d0ne, won'7 s0mebody th1nk of th3 ch1ldr3n1?!??!???\" </p>\n\n<p>You can't dictate through top down command and control how a community should behave. Just because the powers-that-be at StackExchange say \"no subjective questions\" doesn't mean that we need to reflect that and get all up in arms over any question that allows from an element of subjectivity. The community will be what the community is, quit trying to social-engineer it. </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>There are already quite a few questions going beyond the original (blurry) boundary of the proposal, notably on implementation issues.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Then the original boundary was wrong.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/03
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/55",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169/"
]
|
59
|
<p>Today, I was looking at the oldest questions asked in other sites. Take <strong>Geographic Information Systems</strong> as an example:<br>
<a href="http://stackexchange.com/sites#technology-oldest">The site's age is 6y1m</a> and and as it is seen in <a href="http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1425">the area51 page of the site</a>: </p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://area51.stackexchange.com/posts/1425/revisions">The definition phase has started on June 1th 2010.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1425?page=54&phase=commitment&committers=mostrecent#tab-top">The Commitment phase has started on June 14th 2010.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1425?page=1&phase=commitment&committers=mostrecent#tab-top">The private beta phase has started on July 22th 2010.</a> </li>
</ul>
<p>And because that time the private betas last for only one week, probably the public beta started on July 29th 2010.<br>
If you take a look to the oldest questions, you'll see that some of them have been asked even before July 22th 2010. <a href="https://gis.stackexchange.com/q/15541/19874">like this one which has been asked on August 9th 2009 and has been migrated from stackoverflow.com to GIS.SE.</a><br>
Also if you cast a glance to <a href="https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions?page=1431&sort=newest">questions asked before July 29th 2011</a>, you'll see that some of them has been migrated from another sites like superuser.com, etc.<br>
I wanna see if you're going to migrate some questions from other sites to here in private beta?<br>
Or it should be done after getting assured that private beta has ended successfully?<br>
And how will the migration take place?</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 61,
"Author": "Pimgd",
"AuthorID": 74,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/74",
"pm_score": 1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Migration to and from this site, in private beta, is most likely not going to be done. You'd have to invite people to the community in order for them to see the question - and when it comes to migrating from this site, it's easier to just close and re-ask (provided there are no answers yet).</p>\n\n<p>After private beta... well, I suppose you could post a comment on such an Stack Overflow question that their question might be better off at ai.stackexchange. But those would have to be some good questions, and they'd have to be served here better than at Stack Overflow.</p>\n\n<p>As for the example question, I think such a migration wouldn't be helping all that much - it's already answered, and as you can see, after migration, not much else happened to the question. It seems it was moved because both the asker and the answerer have an established presence on the other site, and because it fits better there. </p>\n\n<p>Migration is not something to do quickly.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 63,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>No, that wouldn't happen. A site only becomes eligible as a migration target from other sites' close dialogs after it loses the \"beta\" label entirely. Also, questions older than 60 days <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/156255/295684\">cannot be migrated</a>, even by moderators! The migration you mentioned took place before that rule was instated.</p>\n\n<p>Besides, a question being on-topic at the target site is not a sufficient reason to migrate it. It would have to be explicitly off-topic on the source too. (There's an exception for question owners who want their unanswered question moved: they can flag their post with a custom reason requesting migration.)</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/03
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/59",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/19/"
]
|
1,077
|
<p>How should we as a site treat answers which are simply copy-pasted from another source, (whether with or without attribution)? Particularly those which show little understanding of the topic on the part of the poster.</p>
<p>I won't name anyone, but I've seen an answer where the user apparently simply copy-pasted the first paragraph of the first relevant google result, which didn't even really answer the original question. Afterwards, they admitted to know nothing about the topic themselves. </p>
<p>To me, this seems wrong. What is the general stance on this sort of answers?</p>
<p>(To the person in question, if they recognize themselves: Sorry about this, but I think this sort of thing needs to be discussed.)</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1079,
"Author": "Robert Cartaino",
"AuthorID": 95,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/95",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Post consists almost entirely of content copied from elsewhere should NOT be considered a useful 'answer' in the context of this site. </p>\n\n<p>Copying answers from external sources without permission is not allowed (and quoting or linking back to that site does <strong><em>not</em></strong> make that okay). Even posting an answer copied almost entirely from <em>reusable</em> content should be frowned upon, or even flagged to be removed. </p>\n\n<p>This site was created to add something unique (and better) to the Internet. If we're simply copying stuff that's already out there, why bother? We're just adding another barrier between the folks searching for this stuff and the original source of the content.</p>\n\n<p>Answers should create something original and useful for this community specifically. That is why we bring together individual communities of experts to host these topics. </p>\n\n<p>And vetting is a <strong><em>big</em></strong> part of this site. Your <em>best</em> content should be rising to the top. <strong>Please stop up-voting these posts!</strong></p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1083,
"Author": "Franck Dernoncourt",
"AuthorID": 4,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4",
"pm_score": -1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>As long as it does answer the question, clearly indicates it is a quote, doesn't infringe licenses, and gives proper attribution, it is fine. </p>\n\n<p>(Why reinventing the wheel?)</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1115,
"Author": "Alexey Vesnin",
"AuthorID": 1263,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1263",
"pm_score": 0,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Plagiarism is unethical, IMHO: if you're providing a link to a source, it's more than enough. But if you want to provide <em>a cite</em>, then it must be referenced and marked up in appropriate manner</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/04
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1077",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/30/"
]
|
1,078
|
<p>At one point I thought I got it, but then I lost again.</p>
<p>Few highlights:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><a href="https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/a/46">https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/a/46</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>modeling belongs to Data Science SE</p>
<p>I think the site should be interested in implementation experts.</p>
</blockquote>
</li>
<li><p><a href="https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7">https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/a/7</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>No, data science and the implementation of artificial intelligence are off-topic.</p>
</blockquote>
</li>
<li><p><a href="https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/a/72">https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/a/72</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>suggest that "programming" and "implementation problems" be explicitly listed as outside the scope of this site</p>
</blockquote>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Obvious points are:</p>
<ul>
<li>data science questions belong to <a href="https://datascience.stackexchange.com/">Data Science site</a>,</li>
<li>programming questions belong <a href="http://stackoverflow.com">Stack Overflow</a>.</li>
</ul>
<p>What about AI implementation and modelling? Above quotes are a bit contradictory.</p>
<p>So what's on-topic exactly, <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/1297/8">AI modelling or implementation</a>, or none of it?</p>
<p>If none of it, what should be?</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1082,
"Author": "Franck Dernoncourt",
"AuthorID": 4,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4",
"pm_score": 0,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Programming, algorithm, modeling, math, philosophy, and history questions should the off-topic, as they are already on-topic in <a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4/4\">other SE</a>, such as Stats and Data Science.</p>\n\n<p>Data science and the Stats SE already have a huge overlap (>~80%), and I am worried to have a third SE that also significantly overlaps with them. Personally, it would further demotivate me to write any answer, as it gets tiring to copy-paste content, and updating duplicated answers is a pain.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1235,
"Author": "mindcrime",
"AuthorID": 33,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": true,
"text": "<p>I'm sorry, but we can't just go with a simple, blanket statement like \"Programming, algorithm, modeling, math, philosophy, and history questions should the off-topic, as they are already on-topic in other SE, such as Stats and Data Science.\" Why? Because not <em>all</em> questions about \"programming, algorithms, modeling...\", vis-a-vis Artificial Intelligence, are on-topic at those other sites! But they are here.</p>\n\n<p>And what's the distinction that should be in play? Well, simply, \"programming, algorithms, modeling, math, etc. that are *specific to AI\" are on-topic here. It really can't be any other way.</p>\n\n<p>I mean, think about it... we claim to be a \"science\" site, but then try to say that \"math\" is off-topic? That's absurd. Science <em>is</em> math and math <em>is</em> science. Or to put it another way \"math is the language of science\". </p>\n\n<p>If we keep pushing this idea that all hard technical questions are off-topic, all we're going to get are vague questions about speculative aspects of AI, with answers that are nothing to speculation and hand-waving. </p>\n\n<p>What should be on-topic? Questions about Artificial Intelligence, full-stop. It's right there in the name on the marquee sign, as they say. </p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1237,
"Author": "EngrStudent",
"AuthorID": 2263,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/2263",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>A for loop is not the same as gradient decent. Gradient decent is not the same as NN convergence, or generalization. You cannot do the latter without the former.</p>\n\n<p>Biology is really Chemistry. Chemistry is really Physics. Physics is really math. If we required doctors to work through the math, then the quantum physics and molecular electronics, then the chemistry before they could do medicine they would die of old age first.</p>\n\n<p>I think that we are trying to separate the fields of computer programming, data science, and such into layers of abstractions. Each layer has to be thick - to stand on its own and properly envelope its content.</p>\n\n<p>Right now, Machine Learning and Artificial intelligence are \"young\" so there is going to be nuts and bolts. If we don't give clean bridges there then this area gets to be a philosophical wasteland - no engineering allowed. If we have some courtesy and we are willing to realize that the divisions are not clean yet, then we can make better mileage toward building a richer community.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1242,
"Author": "MolbOrg",
"AuthorID": 2214,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/2214",
"pm_score": 1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Practical applications should be on topic here, at least at some extend to keep proportion between philosophy and implementations.</p>\n\n<p>This is important in therms of building community. It is hard to change course later, and if you will this place to be one of fantasy-futurology-imaginary world building site of SE then strike out practical application.</p>\n\n<p>this question could be asked on WB as well <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/1897/is-consciousness-necessary-for-any-ai-task\">Is consciousness necessary for any AI task?</a> people there are very exited in discussing consciousness.</p>\n\n<p>This question is definitely low quality <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/1869/deep-neural-network-for-not-so-popular-board-game\">https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/1869/deep-neural-network-for-not-so-popular-board-game</a> , for obvious reasons, fresh enthusiastic member with practical question - holding it discourages people who where fresh attracted, attracted by super title <em>Artificial Intelligence</em>, not boring <em>Data Science</em> where you do not know what to expect as Science of Data is big field. But there is short and clear AI, yes I wish one, give me two.</p>\n\n<p>At the moment there is no implementations of AI(in movie sense)(known, for me, not a expert)\nFor that reason to keep track on the ground, practical application should be even if this site is intended to be subset of philosophy about AI.\nMaybe change name then to reflect that - based on AI.SE I had expectation to see there useful stuff. From PAI.SE I expect nothing, not interested to know will AI kill humanity or not, how it will change perception of humanity about world, whatever.</p>\n\n<p>At least amateur level implementation should be, at <em>least</em> it is bare minimum what you need.\nProbably even that is not enough and will not work out. You should decide is that philosophy site or is that site about AI, if second then everything about AI(creation, theory, implementation, consequences) should be on topic here - all or nothing, have balls people, it is important for mankind, for our future.</p>\n\n<p>You should discuss more which promises name promises - Artificial Intelligence - and whom it attracts.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/04
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1078",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/"
]
|
1,081
|
<p>It was <a href="https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/a/72/8">suggested</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"implementation problems" be explicitly listed as outside the scope of this site</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Can we clarify what this could mean? Some example would be useful.</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1078/what-should-be-on-topic-modelling-or-implementation-or-anything-else#comment1065_1078">@InquisitiveLurker</a> suggested that this could mean asking about inner workings of basic algorithms, but then how we define 'inner working'.</p>
<p>This also may help: <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/1297/8">How to distinguish AI modeling from implementation?</a></p>
<hr>
<p>Any ideas?</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1105,
"Author": "Eric Platon",
"AuthorID": 169,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Implementation problems may refer to the \"how to do X with the Y tool/framework\" kind of questions. Such kind of questions are indirectly related to AI, via the X part, which could lead to ask the OP to change the question focus. So questions that solely pertain to Y should be off-topic.</p>\n\n<p>One issue with this approach, is that, say, 10 years ago, Y would have been seen as AI from science fictions. At some point in time, \"we did it\", and Y just looks like another tool.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1107,
"Author": "mindcrime",
"AuthorID": 33,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Personally I disagree with the entire premise that \"implementation should be off topic\". I don't see any point in talking nothing but theory and never talking implementation. My fear is that that will lead us into fringe-land with a lot of sketch posts asking philosophical questions that aren't really helpful to anybody. </p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/04
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1081",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/"
]
|
1,085
|
<p>In these early days, how can we attract attention to the best questions? The current front page does not accurately reflect this. Keeping in mind that our goal is to invite experts, I think it would be great if we could manually curate a list of questions that we can tout as ideal questions for this SE. </p>
<p>(We could create a community wiki here with the answers as we discuss how to proceed)</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1087,
"Author": "Harsh",
"AuthorID": 130,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/130",
"pm_score": 1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>To give examples of questions I think are good, and that we should promote, in order with the best questions at the top:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/92/how-is-it-possible-that-deep-neural-networks-are-so-easily-fooled\">How is it possible that deep neural networks are so easily fooled?</a> I would not have put \"easily\" in the title, but it is an excellent question that the AI experts I know spend a lot of time thinking about.</li>\n<li><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/1294/how-does-hintons-capsules-theory-work\">How does Hinton's "capsules theory" work?</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/77/is-lisp-still-being-used-to-tackle-ai-problems\">Is Lisp still being used to tackle AI problems?</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/227/what-is-the-difference-between-mlp-and-rbf\">What is the difference between MLP and RBF?</a> : This can go to Crossvalidated but I'd argue it's out of place there and more at home here. Though it is a comparison of two specific algorithms, it reflects wider design issues in AI algorithms.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>Others may disagree on this list, but I'd like to put up here the questions I think are more on-topic here than I think in other SEs. Some overlap is inevitable.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1089,
"Author": "Dawny33",
"AuthorID": 101,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/101",
"pm_score": 1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>These are some ways to highlight and promote nice content on the site:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>Organizing a quarterly post, where people are encouraged to post their favourite qns/ans and the top three would be awarded bounties by the mods or whoever is interested in contributing.</li>\n<li>Cross-posting the nice ones to other sites like reddit, etc. This would help in marketing the site, as well as good karma by sharing good content.</li>\n</ol>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1095,
"Author": "Matthew Graves",
"AuthorID": 10,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/10",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I think that Harsh's list is a good start if we want to get people who think of themselves as AI experts, instead of people who think of themselves as AGI experts. (The G is for 'general.') But in order to differentiate this site from Cross Validated or Data Science, we're trying to focus on the humanities / philosophy side. </p>\n\n<p>I worry that this means that we're going to have a parade of AI 101 questions, like <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/179/how-do-multiple-intelligences-fit-in-ai\">How does multiple intelligences fit in AI?</a> or <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/1320/how-does-artificial-intelligence-work-in-games\">How does artificial intelligence Work in games?</a>, which isn't an implementation or algorithms question because it's so broad and basic, or simple discussions of complicated issues, like the on-hold <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/7/why-does-stephen-hawking-say-artificial-intelligence-will-kill-us-all\">Why does Stephen Hawking say \"Artificial Intelligence will kill us all\"?</a>.</p>\n\n<p>And this suggests that the AI experts are going to become rapidly bored and leave, since they can't ask the questions they're interested in and don't see any interesting questions to answer, and so they won't be around to contribute to the humanities side of the discussion. What good humanities questions have we had, so far? My short list is something like:</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/74/what-is-the-difference-between-strong-ai-and-weak-ai\">What is the different between strong-AI and weak-AI?</a> (though this is another 101 question)</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/15/is-the-turing-test-or-any-of-its-variants-a-reliable-test-of-artificial-intell\">Is the Turing Test, or any of its variants, a reliable test of artificial intelligence?</a></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/148/what-limits-if-any-does-the-halting-problem-put-on-artificial-intelligence\">What limits, if any, does the halting problem put on Artificial Intelligence?</a></p>\n\n<p>But that's three good humanities questions out of the <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes\">15 currently most upvoted questions</a>.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1109,
"Author": "Mithical",
"AuthorID": 145,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/145",
"pm_score": 0,
"selected": false,
"text": "<h2>Add bounties.</h2>\n\n<p>What else can you do? Adding bounties to questions puts them in a special category on the front page. If you want, you could even have two users who 'bounce' a bounty to each other on few questions, to make sure that they stay there in the 'featured' tab.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1130,
"Author": "wythagoras",
"AuthorID": 29,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I'd like to point out that every site has a greatest hits page. Ours is at</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/greatest-hits\">https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/greatest-hits</a></p>\n\n<p>Ours is currently empty, unfortunately, but I suspect that there will be questions there within a month or so. (An older site, Monero, still doesn't have any questions in this list. On the other hand, the Language Learning site does, but that site is already three months old.)</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1140,
"Author": "Raphael",
"AuthorID": 1486,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1486",
"pm_score": -1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Upvote <em>only</em> good questions.</p>\n\n<p>Down- and/or close-vote <em>all</em> bad questions.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/04
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1085",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/130/"
]
|
1,090
|
<p>There is a constant war between spammers and website operators, to prevent websites from spam. CAPTCHA's are the tools to protect sites, and are the front line of this arms race.</p>
<p>This is an area of AI research that is directly relevant to the public. </p>
<p>The question is if we should allow postings about how to defeat CAPTCHA's. They are probably in scope, but we don't want to help spammers.</p>
<p><a href="https://xkcd.com/810/" rel="nofollow">Obligatory XKCD link</a>.</p>
<p>We may get some inspiration from Security.SE. They have some experience in dealing with ethical issues. Over there, they have an explicit close reason for questions about hacking other systems: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Questions asking us to break the security of a specific system for you are off-topic unless they demonstrate an understanding of the concepts involved and clearly identify a specific problem. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Maybe we need a similar close reason or off-topic flag?</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1093,
"Author": "Robert Cartaino",
"AuthorID": 95,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/95",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p><sub><sub>(Without seeing any actual examples…)</sub></sub></p>\n\n<p>These can likely be closed as off topic <em>already.</em> A question sufficiently detailed enough to ask how to defeat a system based in AI will likely no longer be about the <strong><em>subject</em></strong> of AI itself. It would be like asking how to defeat the smart aliens in Galactic Uberblast 2020, or how to remove the T47/a access panel of your robot butler if he wont let you. </p>\n\n<p>There's a point where a question is only <em>coincidentally</em> related to the subject of AI itself — close it as off topic.</p>\n\n<p>There will always be sticky edge cases where someone might be asking how an AI-based security system <strong>works,</strong> but it becomes somewhat problematic to preempt any such questions by presuming the <em>intent</em> of an author before you see such questions in actual practice. It's probably too early to conjure up a broad policy statement when there is really no tangible problem to defeat. </p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1094,
"Author": "kenorb",
"AuthorID": 8,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"pm_score": 0,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Asking about how Captcha works or what is mechanism of AI recognising the text from the image, isn't illegal.</p>\n<p>Neither whether has been cracked/hacked or not, which has been asked at Stack Overflow:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://stackoverflow.com/q/448963/55075\">Has reCaptcha been cracked / hacked / OCR'd / defeated / broken?</a></li>\n</ul>\n<p>Captcha is just a type of challenge-response test used in determine whether somebody is human or not and this technology is not owned by anybody. There are many research studies how to improve this technology to keep spammers away.</p>\n<p>If the post doesn't indicate it's against the law and doesn't show any illegal activity, there is no reason to close it. If it's unethical, you can always down-vote it or ask for clarification. There are special agencies which deals with that problem, so you don't have to worry about it.</p>\n<p>If it's not illegal, it's up to you how you'll use the knowledge from the posts. As it can be always used for research and educational purposes.</p>\n<p>See also:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/21706/191655\">Should unethical questions be answered?</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/80495/191655\">Policy regarding questions related to unethical or “shady” practices</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>we bury our heads in the sand, we're just pretending the problem doesn't exist and we can't help defend against it</p>\n<p>If a process is clearly illegal, especially in the US, then it should not be discussed.</p>\n</blockquote>\n</li>\n</ul>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/05
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1090",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/66/"
]
|
1,091
|
<p>This is my question about a very common problem faced while training several data science and AI algorithms, and most importantly while backpropogating errors in neural networks, which is <strong>getting trapped in a local minima while descending gradient.</strong></p>
<p>So, according to the discussion under the qn, it is <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/1362/101">claimed to be off-topic</a></p>
<p>However, in the defence of my post, I think it is perfectly on-topic in this site, as it asks about a legit problem faced while training neural nets and several other AI algorithms.</p>
<p>So, I am looking forward to what the community thinks regarding this.</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1092,
"Author": "NietzscheanAI",
"AuthorID": 42,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/42",
"pm_score": 1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Escaping local optima is an extremely ubiquitous problem (in case it's unclear - there are vastly more applications than backprop), leading to many open questions (a great deal of metaheuristics research, indisputably part of AI, is concerned with this). </p>\n\n<p>So, it is much more open-ended (and therefore subject to heuristic/AI solutions) than the more pedestrian questions (with procedural anwers) about e.g. backprop that appear to be within the AI SE remit.</p>\n\n<p>Hence, I'd say it is definitely on topic ;-)</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1096,
"Author": "Franck Dernoncourt",
"AuthorID": 4,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": true,
"text": "<p>The question is off-topic, as it's about how to the use of machine learning algorithms. (the other questions on neural nets, their architectures, backpropogation, are also off-topic).</p>\n\n<p>Programming, algorithm, modeling, math, philosophy, and history questions should the off-topic, as they are already on-topic in <a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4/4\">other SE</a>, such as Stats and Data Science.</p>\n\n<p>Data science and the Stats SE already have a huge overlap (>~80%), and I am worried to have a third SE that also significantly overlaps with them. Personally, it would further demotivate me to write any answer, as it gets tiring to copy-paste content, and updating duplicated answers is a pain.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1098,
"Author": "Disenchanted Lurker",
"AuthorID": 30,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/30",
"pm_score": 0,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Personally, I consider gradient descent something akin to what something like differential equations is to physics - a useful piece of mathematics that has a large array of applications, but not really an AI topic by itself.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>When we talk about AI, there are different levels of detail and \"technicalness\" we can go into and I believe it's necessary to draw the line somewhere.</p>\n\n<p>To illustrate what I mean, let me use the example of self-driving cars:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>There's the concept of the <strong>self-driving car</strong> itself</li>\n<li>The car has some sort of <strong>computer-vision</strong> system</li>\n<li>That system might involve a <strong>neural network</strong></li>\n<li>That network needs to be <strong>trained</strong> somehow - there are different algorithms for that</li>\n<li>One of the most common ones is <strong>backpropagation</strong></li>\n<li>Backpropagation often uses <strong>gradient descent</strong></li>\n<li>Gradient descent is an <strong>optimization algorithm</strong></li>\n<li>and so on...</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>We could look at an AI problem at any of those levels. But at some point, it becomes no longer really about AI but rather about mathematics or statistics. And those topics are already covered well by other sites.</p>\n\n<p>Basically, what I believe is that this site should mainly concentrate on the top few lines of that list, and leave the rest to more appropriate venues.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/05
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1091",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/101/"
]
|
1,099
|
<p>So, can someone help me understand what the scope of the site is?</p>
<p><a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/1358/101">I ask a question about Monte Carlo search</a>, which is one of the core algorithms behind the Go playing <strong>AI bot</strong>, AlphaGo, and it is closed off as off-topic, citing this reason <code>This question does not appear to be about artificial intelligence</code>.</p>
<p>So, my question is: <strong>Why isn't it about AI?</strong> Isn't AlphaGo an AI bot? Why does asking about an AI algorithm of an AI bot make it off-topic?</p>
<p><strong>Can someone(maybe one of the close-voters) take the example of AlphaGo and explain what an on-topic question and an off-topic question(<-- You can use mine if you want to.) would look like?</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1091/101">I already asked a question about the scope of this site</a>, citing another example, where I'm yet to get a clear answer.</p>
<p>If all the questions get closed as on-topic in DS and CV, then why do we even have this site? (Sorry if I sound rude, but I really want this site to grow. So, the early we sought out our scope, the better.)</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1100,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I was one of the close voters.</p>\n\n<p>First up, the close message you see is the generic off-topic message - we only get one reason under the \"off-topic\" branch of the close dialogs because we currently have no moderators to create and approve off-topic reasons. Therefore, anything deemed off-topic will get that one message. It's not that your question wasn't about AI, it wasn't about AI <em>as defined in the help center</em> (or, again, since we have no moderators yet, as defined on meta).</p>\n\n<p>Your question, in my understanding, is about specific algorithms and how they work. We're not really into the math/statistics/implementation on this site, because those are already well covered by existing places.</p>\n\n<p>I think that the question could be reopened if it was adjusted to ask something like \"Why is Alpha Go's approach more appropriate for games than existing technologies?\" Then the question wouldn't be about a specific algorithm, but answers could still dive in if they wanted.</p>\n\n<p>As for whether we have a scope, we're still working on that, as evidenced by our abundance of meta posts about topicality! I think we do have at least some sketches of what should by on- and off-topic, though.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1101,
"Author": "kenorb",
"AuthorID": 8,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"pm_score": 1,
"selected": true,
"text": "<p>The initial scope on <a href=\"http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481/artificial-intelligence\">Area 51</a> proposal was:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Conceptual questions about life and challenges in a world where \"cognitive\" functions can be mimicked in purely digital environment.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Of course this isn't a strict rule, because the final scope is defined by community based on the questions being asked, so if you have any great question related to AI, please ask. So after some time this site can find a distinct and unique scope in comparison to other existing <a href=\"http://stackexchange.com/sites#science-questionsperday\">network sites</a>.</p>\n\n<p>However please note that the questions about <a href=\"https://stackoverflow.com/\">programming</a>, <a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/q/71/8\">algorithms</a>, <a href=\"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/machine-learning\">implementation</a> and <a href=\"https://datascience.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/machine-learning\">data modelling</a> are already on-topic on the other dedicated sites and are likely to be off-topic here in order to avoid <a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4/8\">huge overlap</a>.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>Basically the scope is still about <strong>artificial intelligence</strong>, but coming from the technical background, asking the right question could be challenging (because we've already a lot of sites dedicated to different aspects of AI). You can think about it like <a href=\"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/\">Programmers</a> SE site, but without asking actual programming questions.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1106,
"Author": "mindcrime",
"AuthorID": 33,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I don't know, but that shouldn't have been closed. It should be, in almost every case, sufficient to simply <em>ignore</em> any question which falls into a \"grey area\" regarding scope. We should only close questions which are blatant spam, trolling, or so wildly off-topic that a 2 year old could see it (like a question about the best fuel injector cleaner to use for 1972 Ford Pinto, or something).</p>\n\n<p>If questions are desired by the community, they'l bubble to the top. If they aren't, they'll die from lack of activity. Explicitly closing a question is an aggressive and hostile act and should always be a measure of last resort.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/06
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1099",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/101/"
]
|
1,103
|
<p>It would be nice to add <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/">https://stats.stackexchange.com/</a> as a migration target:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/emrFr.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/emrFr.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1104,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Yes, that would definitely be a good idea; we get a lot of questions that belong there.</p>\n\n<p>The trick is that sites only get migration paths (in or out) after they graduate fully. The reasoning behind this is that beta sites are still figuring out their scopes, and it would be bad to send a question away forever with no way to reopen it at the source site.</p>\n\n<p>Moderators can migrate things anywhere, but only if the question is less than 60 days old. If we get pro-tem mods in time, we could consider sending any good-but-definitely-off-topic questions away.</p>\n\n<p>People might also want to migrate to <a href=\"https://datascience.stackexchange.com/\">Data Science</a>, but it's still in public beta and is therefore not guaranteed to stick around. Migrations to beta sites are <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/258601/295684\">discouraged</a>.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1114,
"Author": "kenorb",
"AuthorID": 8,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"pm_score": 1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I think we should have first the list of questions which are off-topic here, and on-topic there. If we've enough number of them, the migration target probably can be added later on. For now you can flag each question for moderation, so it can be migrated manually when accepted.</p>\n\n<p>However as far as I've checked, there are only 73 questions tagged with <a href=\"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence\">artificial-intelligence</a> on Stat.SE where 1/3 of them are still unanswered (24), so I believe some questions about artificial intelligence probably are better suited here. Unless they're specifically related to <a href=\"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/machine-learning\">machine-learning</a> where, again, 40% of them are unanswered which make us think where they really belong.</p>\n\n<p>On the other hand, using/programming/implementing AI, at the same time doesn't make me expert on statistics aka cross-validation/rotation estimation model, which to be honest, I don't know nothing about.</p>\n\n<p>And it's not only me:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>statistical learning is not the path to AI (Artificial Intelligence)</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Source: <a href=\"https://www.quora.com/I-once-heard-statistical-learning-is-not-the-path-to-AI-Artificial-Intelligence-what-are-the-arguments-that-support-this-statement-claim\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Quora</a>.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/07
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1103",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
]
|
1,110
|
<p>Currently we've the following tags related to gaming:
<a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ai-games" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'ai-games'" rel="tag">ai-games</a>, <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/gaming" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'gaming'" rel="tag">gaming</a>, <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/go-game" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'go-game'" rel="tag">go-game</a>, <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/game-theory" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'game-theory'" rel="tag">game-theory</a>, <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/game-play" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'game-play'" rel="tag">game-play</a>, <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/games" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'games'" rel="tag">games</a>.</p>
<p>Can we decide on one or two to stick with related to gaming? Which one would be the most suitable?</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1113,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I would go with <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/gaming\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'gaming'\" rel=\"tag\">gaming</a>. It's implied that questions on an AI site will be about AI, so there's no need to specify that in a tag. The gerund form makes it clear that gaming is something the AIs are doing.</p>\n\n<p>We can add tags for specific games (like Go) if they become big topics.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1116,
"Author": "dontloo",
"AuthorID": 185,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/185",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Some of these tags seem related but I think <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/game-theory\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'game-theory'\" rel=\"tag\">game-theory</a> has a well-known definition (from <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">wikipedia</a>)</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between\n intelligent rational decision-makers</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>and it's applied in other fields besides AI.</p>\n\n<p>IMO there should also be different tags for <code>AI that's used in games</code> and <code>AI that plays games</code>, the first may correspond to <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/gaming\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'gaming'\" rel=\"tag\">gaming</a> <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/games\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'games'\" rel=\"tag\">games</a> or so and I would call the second <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/game-play\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'game-play'\" rel=\"tag\">game-play</a>.</p>\n\n<p>Moreover <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Go</a> refers to that specific board game, which had for long been considered as the only game that humans play better than machines until the AI <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">AlphaGo</a> came into play. So <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/go-game\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'go-game'\" rel=\"tag\">go-game</a> seems to be particularly for <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Go</a>.</p>\n\n<p>So IMO at least <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/game-theory\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'game-theory'\" rel=\"tag\">game-theory</a> <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/go-game\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'go-game'\" rel=\"tag\">go-game</a> have clear definitions, and among the others there should be separate tags for <code>AI that's used in games</code> and <code>AI that plays games</code>.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1132,
"Author": "wythagoras",
"AuthorID": 29,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29",
"pm_score": 0,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I think there is a bit of a difference between <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/games\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'games'\" rel=\"tag\">games</a> and <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/gaming\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'gaming'\" rel=\"tag\">gaming</a>. I wouldn't call playing Go or chess gaming. I might call it, depending on the context, playing a game. </p>\n\n<p>On the other hand, playing a game such as World of Warcraft or Plants vs. Zombies, I would call gaming. (not that I do it...)</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1135,
"Author": "Mithical",
"AuthorID": 145,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/145",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": true,
"text": "<p>I think there should be two tags here:</p>\n\n<p><strong><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/gaming\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'gaming'\" rel=\"tag\">gaming</a> and <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/game-theory\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'game-theory'\" rel=\"tag\">game-theory</a>.</strong></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/gaming\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'gaming'\" rel=\"tag\">gaming</a> is for how AIs are used <em>in games</em>.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/game-theory\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'game-theory'\" rel=\"tag\">game-theory</a> should be used for AIs <em>playing games</em>.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/09
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1110",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/"
]
|
1,122
|
<p>At the beginning we were worried that this site won't provide anything useful. Is that still the case?</p>
<p>As <a href="http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/31517321#31517321">@Ben</a> mentioned:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Right now, the default state is <strong>fail</strong> unless we can show SE that we bring something new to <em>the</em> network.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Have we managed to bring something new to the <a href="http://stackexchange.com/sites#science-questionsperday">network</a> and this site has found its own distinct and unique scope? What do you think and why?</p>
<hr>
<p>Btw. I've already posted my opinion <a href="https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1119/8">here</a>.</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1129,
"Author": "Robert Cartaino",
"AuthorID": 95,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/95",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>It's a tricky question.</p>\n<p><sub><sup><em>This is NOT a site review, but a personal observation having followed this subject on the network for some time.</em></sup></sub></p>\n<p>I think we've done a better job at scoping out something fundamentally more useful as a site. The formative question is whether we have a suitable audience to actually build out this space. But that has to happen here and now; they won't just <em>show up</em> later.</p>\n<p>Stack Exchange is billed as a network of practitioners helping their peers solve everyday problems. Unfortunately, a large percentage of the questions being asked here sit squarely in the curiosity-seekers space. Questions mostly wallow conspicuously in played-out subjects which "real" AI researches have stopped asking a long ago — Is <em>this</em> AI? What does <em>concept</em> mean? When are we going to get there? When is AI going to do {x}?</p>\n<p>I won't pass judgement on whether we've given up on actually building a peer-review site. I talked about some of this in <a href=\"https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/12/no-artificial-intelligence-in-area-51/\">no artificial intelligence in Area 51</a>.</p>\n<p>There are certainly at least a few very knowledgeable people in this community — actual researchers working in this field — but there's a bifurcation of posts from folks with <em>active</em> experience and someone just showing up with whatever they find in a cursory Google search. <strong>The problem is that the community either doesn't know the difference, or doesn't care to vote up one over the other.</strong> It's hard to fault anyone for trying valiantly to get something going here, but watching something from Wikipedia being voted on with equal alacrity is somewhat… discouraging.</p>\n<h3>Have we brought something new to the network?</h3>\n<p>Probably. Questions here don't generally fit elsewhere.</p>\n<h3>Have we created something useful?</h3>\n<p>Hard to say; that's a big question for the final review.</p>\n<h3>Does this a address a peer group prevalent in this space?</h3>\n<p>That does not seem likely — If you read <a href=\"https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/area-51-asking-the-first-questions/\"><strong>Asking the First Questions</strong></a>, I suspect that ship will have sailed by time we reach public beta.</p>\n<h3>Have we improved the Internet in general?</h3>\n<p>My suspicion is the lack of true peer review in this space will make most of what is posted here about <em>status quo</em> with what you can already find elsewhere. That is by no means certain; that is just my observation.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1158,
"Author": "mindcrime",
"AuthorID": 33,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p><em>Have we brought something new to the network?</em></p>\n\n<p>I think so. Yes, there's overlap with other sites, and yes it would be nice to have more deeper / research level questions and answers. But I posit that getting to that level will happen IF the site is given enough time. That and if we don't chase too many users away with too much bureaucracy and pedantry.</p>\n\n<p>Remember the old ai.se was actually working well, just at a scale that was - at the time - deemed too small by the se powers-that-be. If this site is allowed to live post-beta, I expect it to get steadily better. Keep in mind, AI is difficult because it's such a broad topic. And even now there's lingering resistance among some people to talking about \"artificial intelligence\" (as opposed to \"machine learning\", etc.) after the various AI Winters of the past. </p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/10
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1122",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/"
]
|
1,123
|
<p>We've this old thread at Area 51 (related to older site proposal which failed):</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11659/61861">How is this proposal different from Cross Validated?</a></li>
</ul>
<p>In general accepted <a href="https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/a/11708/61861">post</a> says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>First of all, artificial intelligence is a much broader term than machine learning. While at the same time Cross Validated is not about machine learning, but about statistics.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Is it still valid point? Can we elaborate on this further more?</p>
<p>How this site is different from <em>Cross Validated</em>? Do we have now more arguments to it?</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1127,
"Author": "Matthew Graves",
"AuthorID": 10,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/10",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I'm of the opinion that we should allow ML and AI research-style questions here, of the sort that would also <em>could</em> be on-topic at Cross Validated but would be less likely to hit their intended audience there than they would here.</p>\n\n<p>That is, I don't think there is a difference in topics so much as there is a difference between clusters of people who care about those topics, and the perspectives that they bring and the sort of questions and answers that they'll consider interestingly on-topic. </p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1128,
"Author": "Franck Dernoncourt",
"AuthorID": 4,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4",
"pm_score": -1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<blockquote>\n <p>While at the same time Cross Validated is not about machine learning, but about statistics.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This is not a valid point, as all machine learning questions are on-topic on CV.</p>\n\n<p>It's unclear to me what extent non-statistical AI is on-topic on CV, so I asked there <a href=\"https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4257/what-is-our-stance-on-questions-about-non-statistical-artificial-intelligence\">https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4257/what-is-our-stance-on-questions-about-non-statistical-artificial-intelligence</a> If no, it makes sense to have a (non-stat?) AI site. If yes, I think we should merge and rename CV.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1143,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": true,
"text": "<p>Clearly, <a href=\"https://stats.stackexchange.com/\">Cross Validated</a> is about statistics - it's even in the URL, <code>stats.stackexchange.com</code>. They're a very math-heavy and calculation-oriented site. MathJax is enabled there, and every question I scanned from their front page involves code or mathematical formulae. <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/machine-learning\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'machine-learning'\" rel=\"tag\">machine-learning</a> is their third most popular tag at the moment, and <a href=\"https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/machine-learning\">questions in it</a> are about the stats/math involved in machine learning.</p>\n\n<p>Questions here are not expected to involve that level of detail. MathJax is not enabled here, and that <a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/q/35/75\">might</a> be purposeful. Our questions should be about the <a href=\"https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/a/24016/136466\">science</a> - not so much the technology or math or implementation of - artificial intelligence. (For machine learning implementation, see <a href=\"https://datascience.stackexchange.com/\">Data Science</a>.)</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1183,
"Author": "mindcrime",
"AuthorID": 33,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>AI is broader than Machine Learning and Statistical Learning. Yes, the probabilistic / statistical stuff dominates the conversation these days, but AI includes rule based systems, expert systems, symbolic processing, logic programming and other things that would not be on-topic at Cross Validated (or Data Science).</p>\n\n<p>We've also been saying that we have more of a focus on the philosophy of AI and the humanities related aspects, as opposed to strictly the technology.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/10
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1123",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/"
]
|
1,139
|
<p>By AI programming, I mean somebody asks how to solve programming issue which deals with AI logic specifically, e.g.</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/1570/8">Why does my NN not classify these tic tac toe pattern correctly?</a></li>
</ul>
<p>The above example uses Keras, highly modular neural networks library written in Python.</p>
<hr />
<p>Are these off-topic and why they cannot be here?</p>
<p>If not, would be this ever considered? Especially the code which is very specific to AI coding?</p>
<hr />
<p>Related: <a href="https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/a/46/8">What kind of experts are we trying to attract?</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>In fact, I think now that implementation questions would benefit from a dedicated site (my view has evolved since the Area 51 definition phase). I have replied and tried to reply to several SO questions related to ML tools, and I think some are out of place compared to other questions. For example, some TensorFlow questions are not really programming questions, and not really framework questions. I mean, there is background knowledge on graph construction and execution, as well as background knowledge about statistics and probabilities that are really necessary to make meaningful contributions.</p>
<p>This is not to say that all questions are out of place on SO. Some are really framework issues or (Python) programming issues, and they are good there.</p>
<p>Based on this opinion, I think the site should be interested in implementation experts, whether they work on ML or Expert Systems (or both?).</p>
<p>-- @EricPlaton</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<p>So we're talking about coding highly modular neural networks libraries which require advanced background knowledge and AI expertise, and it was suggested.</p>
<p>The same as other specific modular frameworks, where coding questions are on-topic on their dedicated websites, they're allowed on: <a href="https://drupal.stackexchange.com/">Drupal.SE</a>, <a href="https://wordpress.stackexchange.com/">Wordpress.SE</a>, <a href="https://tex.stackexchange.com/">TeX.SE</a>, <a href="https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/apex">Apex at Salesforce.SE</a>, etc. For a standard programmer without specific expertise, these are a bit of out-of-place on Stack Overflow.</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1207,
"Author": "Matthew Graves",
"AuthorID": 10,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/10",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": true,
"text": "<p>In general, I think that we should allow questions on neural network architecture in order to attract and retain experts who actually build state of the art systems.</p>\n\n<p>But for that specific question, I'm torn and lean towards keeping it closed. It's a novice instead of an expert architecture question; a good answer to it looks more like an explanation of how the necessary number of training examples scales with rule complexity, and how to ensure that the model depth and breadth is sufficient to encode rules of a certain complexity, and maybe also how to 'cheat' on model size and training requirements with convolution layers.</p>\n\n<p>But if we want a question to expound on that sort of 101 material, it should probably be a set of three specific, easily searchable questions rather than the question that actually exists.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1208,
"Author": "Franck Dernoncourt",
"AuthorID": 4,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4",
"pm_score": -1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>There are already plenty of questions on programming AI/NN frameworks on Data science and SO: I don't think we need one more place, SE is fragmented enough.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1210,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 0,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Our site was created to hold questions about the scientific and social - not technical or programmatical - aspects of artificial intelligence. That's evidenced by its original section in Area 51, and by several posts by Stack Exchange staff. For example, see <a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1199/75\">this answer</a> on the question about summarizing our scope (relevant part reproduced here):</p>\n\n<p>The proposal that created this site was intentionally placed in the 'scientific' category. If you accept that we are not creating another programming site, I think we stumbled upon in interesting niche that describes the original premise of this site nicely:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <blockquote>\n <p>Artificial Intelligence Stack Exchange is a site with a social and scientific focus on \"Advanced Computing in Society.\"</p>\n </blockquote>\n \n <p>Think about it. With autonomous cars, smart surveillance, and \"the next big thing\" capturing the headlines, this isn't a terrible idea for a subject. Draping it in the popular AI label gives it a better focus… and it completely disambiguate [sic] that <strong>this is <em>not</em> a technical implementation or programming site.</strong> We already have that.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The emphasis was in the original.</p>\n\n<p>Especially when we actually have a pretty cool scope draft (as summarized there), I don't think we should add an extra place in the network for AI-related programming questions.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1214,
"Author": "mindcrime",
"AuthorID": 33,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>As far as I'm concerned, programming questions should be on-topic IF they are highly specific to AI. That is, if somebody asks \"How do I add an item to a collection in Java\", that would be off-topic even if they were building an AI application. But if somebody is doing something very specialized like Answer Set Programming in Prolog, etc., then I think this community would be best suited to answer that and, as such, the question should be considered on-topic.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/11
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1139",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/"
]
|
1,141
|
<p>You can see that <a href="http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481?phase=commitment">here</a>. However, most of the questions here feel rather more on the technological side of artificial intelligence. Those questions are on-topic on Data Science. <em>That</em> site was created as a site for the technological aspect of machine learning and AI, and <em>that</em> is the site that is in the Technology category (see <a href="http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/55053?phase=beta">here</a>), in spite of having "Science" in its name.</p>
<p>This was already emphasized by Robert Cartaino on <a href="https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/24014/will-machine-learning-be-considered-as-on-topic">Area 51</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Data Science is an <em>applied</em> site for all the programmers/statisticians/mathematicians who are trying to make this stuff <em>work</em>. [...]</p>
<p>Notice that this proposal is in the 'Science' category; <em>not</em> 'Technology'. [...]</p>
<p>It was convincing enough to give this site another try, but if this site were to simply start reiterating the implementation/tools questions that are already covered elsewhere, this site will not likely make it out of private beta.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I already tried to give a hint where we could find science questions here:
<a href="https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1126/where-can-we-find-the-science-part-of-artificial-intelligence">Where can we find the science part of Artificial Intelligence?</a> That is one thing we could do: ask more science questions. The other thing we can do, is closing questions. <em>Please do close</em> questions that are highly technological or asking for applications.</p>
<hr />
<p>I'd like to link some questions that are, in my opinion (but I could be wrong), scientifical :</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/92/how-is-it-possible-that-deep-neural-networks-are-so-easily-fooled">How is it possible that deep neural networks are so easily fooled?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/74/what-is-the-difference-between-strong-ai-and-weak-ai">What is the difference between strong-AI and weak-AI?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/148/what-limits-if-any-does-the-halting-problem-put-on-artificial-intelligence">What limits, if any, does the halting problem put on Artificial Intelligence?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/1397/are-there-any-ai-that-have-passed-the-mist-test-so-far">Are there any AI that have passed the MIST test so far?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/1451/has-the-lovelace-test-2-0-been-successfully-used-in-an-academic-setting">Has the Lovelace Test 2.0 been successfully used in an academic setting?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/123/does-the-chinese-room-argument-hold-against-ai">Does the Chinese Room argument hold against AI?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/1479/do-scientists-know-what-is-happening-inside-artificial-neural-networks">Do scientists know what is happening inside artificial neural networks?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/1525/could-a-boltzmann-machine-store-more-patterns-than-a-hopfield-net">Could a Boltzmann machine store more patterns than a Hopfield net?</a></li>
</ul>
<p>There are more questions around that are scientifical and high-quality (fortunately), I just picked a few from the first page of the highest voted list.</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1142,
"Author": "kenorb",
"AuthorID": 8,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"pm_score": 0,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Also a friendly reminder that our <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/tour\">tour page</a> (also <a href=\"http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481/artificial-intelligence\">proposal</a>) states:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>A question and answer site for people interested in <strong>conceptual questions about life and challenges in a world</strong> where \"cognitive\" functions can be mimicked in purely digital environment. It's built and run by you.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>So I don't see the reason why both kind of questions can be on-topic, conceptual and scientific or similar, otherwise we're limiting without any good reason.</p>\n\n<p>Also please remember that it's run by us, so everybody can decide whether question should be on-topic by voting on it.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1144,
"Author": "Robert Cartaino",
"AuthorID": 95,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/95",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": true,
"text": "<p>I've seen this argument come up <a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1142/95\">here</a> and several times in other discussions about scope:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>I don't see why both kinds of questions can't be on-topic</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>It's because the OPPOSITION against creating this site argued (correctly) that we already created sites to handle this subject explicitly. The argument FOR creating this site claimed that we have a missing socio-scientific angle that needed filling. </p>\n\n<p><strong>Private beta tests if that is a valid premise for creating a NEW site.</strong> </p>\n\n<p>If the founding community does not live up to those expectations, it creates a strong argument for \"I told you so\" — that the initiative has failed. </p>\n\n<p><strong>Stick to the mission.</strong> </p>\n\n<p>Don't give credence to arguments for closure.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1211,
"Author": "mindcrime",
"AuthorID": 33,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": false,
"text": "<blockquote>\n <p>Data Science is an applied site</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Yeah, for <em>data science</em>. Data science is not artificial intelligence. There is overlap around the statistical techniques for machine learning, but they just are not identical. </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Please do close questions that are highly technological or asking for applications.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I'm sorry, but I think this is very misguided. Ignoring all aspects of implementation and technology on a se like this, is like a football team fielding an offense, but no defense (or vice versa). Or maybe I should say, it's like a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup without the chocolate.</p>\n\n<p>The simple truth is, you can say \"programming questions belong on xx.se (or so)\" but there are programming questions which - in principle - would be best suited for this site. If somebody is asking about an AI specific technique or something highly specialized like rule induction using OPS5, this community is probably a better resource than datascience.se, stats.se, or possibly even so. </p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/12
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1141",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29/"
]
|
1,147
|
<p>I have learned a lot reading xkcd and talking about Hal9000 and Solaris over a beer. Granted: that does not make me any expert in AI, by far. But I see some value to it:</p>
<ul>
<li>I get to know concepts that I look up afterwards</li>
<li>I reflect and try to imagine new problems and solutions</li>
<li>I get another view on news or current (technical) problems I face</li>
<li>I get some things to procrastinate on</li>
</ul>
<p>What do you think about questions related to cinema, books and novels, science fiction, etc? What about jokes and funny AI-stuff? </p>
<p>I am not very sharp right now, but maybe something like:</p>
<p><strong>Was HAL9000 programmed to be an egoistic jerk or he just developed it by itself?</strong></p>
<p>Or:</p>
<p><strong>What is your favourite AI-joke?</strong></p>
<p>(<a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/234075/what-is-your-best-programmer-joke/234476">yeah, got it here :)</a>)</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1148,
"Author": "kenorb",
"AuthorID": 8,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"pm_score": 1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>The first question about HAL9000 I believe is on-topic either on <a href=\"https://movies.stackexchange.com/\">Movies.SE</a>, <a href=\"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/\">Sci-fi.SE</a> or <a href=\"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-intelligence\">WorldBuilding.SE</a>, but not in here, where we require some real-world questions, not related to science fiction.</p>\n\n<p>The second one regarding a joke, the quote from the closure reason from that link says it:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>this is because opinion-like questions or the one which are asking something from unlimited list of possibilities <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/98366/191655\">'are not a good fit for this type of Q&A site'</a>. As said by <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/98366/191655\">@RCartaino</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Stack Exchange is well-suited to asking very specific questions that represent real problems you encounter in your day-to-day work. A big part of that process is asking very long-tailed questions; the kind where folks with specific expertise in the subject can propose the best possible answer, which is then voted on so the best possible answers rise to the top.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>There was actually Humor site proposal, but it was <a href=\"https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/q/24036/61861\">closed</a>, because of above reasons.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1149,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": true,
"text": "<p>No, they're not. \"Getting to know you\" or fun, minimal-mind questions are not a good fit for Stack Exchange. Notice how the Stack Overflow question you linked is locked. If it hadn't been locked for historical significance, it would definitely have been deleted.</p>\n\n<p>Especially during the private beta, we must focus on producing quality content. For fun, try <a href=\"http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/43371/artificial-intelligence\">chat</a>!</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/13
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1147",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/70/"
]
|
1,151
|
<p>This question:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/16/8">What is early stopping?</a></li>
</ul>
<p>has been closed as off-topic.</p>
<p>I don't see the reason why it should.</p>
<p>The 'early stopping', in machine learning (<strong>branch of AI</strong>) is used to avoid overfitting when training. Therefore I don't see this question as off-topic.</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1153,
"Author": "wythagoras",
"AuthorID": 29,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I was one of the close voters, and let me explain here why I voted to close. </p>\n\n<p>As I, and some other users, have said <em>multiple times</em> before, we should avoid questions that are only related to machine learning. Those questions are already on-topic on both Data Science and Cross Validated. </p>\n\n<p>The point of creating this site was filling a gap that was not already covered by Data Science and Cross Validated. Early stopping is on-topic on both sites (<a href=\"https://stats.stackexchange.com/search?q=early+stopping\">1</a>, <a href=\"https://datascience.stackexchange.com/search?q=early+stopping\">2</a>). Remember that if this site looks to much like Data Science and/or Cross Validated it <em>will most likely <strong>not</strong> get out of private beta</em>.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1155,
"Author": "Franck Dernoncourt",
"AuthorID": 4,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Data science and the Stats SE already have a huge overlap (>~80%), and I am worried to have a third SE that also significantly overlaps with them, so that why I VTC. </p>\n\n<p>I think the best solution would be along the lines of this proposal: <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/199989/178179\">build and strengthen the Stack Exchange community with “crossover questions” between sites</a>.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/13
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1151",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/"
]
|
1,161
|
<p>I have provided an <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/1522/169">answer</a> where I fail to find a critical source. After looking for it again today, I still cannot find it. Worse still, I have read new articles, reviewed some at the time, and cannot find any other report that <em>explicitly</em> shares the critical source's point. I did find reports that <em>elude</em> to the argument.</p>
<p>I have added a <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/a/1522/169">warning</a> on that missing source. I believe it does not impact the answer value to the thread, but that missing source does impact credibility. As the accepted answer, I am thinking to delete the paragraph that mentions the source.</p>
<p>What should I do? Leave the warning, remove warning and paragraph?</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1162,
"Author": "wythagoras",
"AuthorID": 29,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>We are not requiring that every answer is fully supported by sources that you can currently link in the answer. So, if you are really certain that it is in fact true, you can leave it like it is. However, in this case, you aren't really certain anymore that it is true, or at least I wouldn't be. </p>\n\n<p>If you find, such as now, that it might not be true, or that in fact the opposite might be true, you might want to clarify by just adding a paragraph claiming that the opposite is true (\"On the other hand, (source 1) and (source 2) claim [...]\"), instead of in addition to the warning. It might be a good thing to start the other paragraph with something like \"I've read this\", so that it it clear that the other paragraph is properly sourced while the original one is not. You might want to add a small conclusion (i.e. I'm not certain anymore, what it is).</p>\n\n<p>You can also consider asking a question about it (this is not always appropriate) and linking to this question in your answer, at least when you receive a satisfactory answer. Also, please link to the answer in your question. </p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1164,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>If you can't verify the veracity of information, I think the safest thing to do - ethically speaking - is to annotate the information appropriately, as you've done. It's like Wikipedia's \"citation needed\" markers: they call out information that could be helpful, but is in need of further verification.</p>\n\n<p>I agree with wythagoras's answer. In short, cite sources when possible, and make it clear that we might not have the right answer nailed down yet.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/15
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1161",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169/"
]
|
1,165
|
<p>Ideally Moderators are elected by the community, but until the community is large enough to hold a proper election, we will be appointing three provisional Moderators to fill those roles.</p>
<p>We need your help. Please nominate folks you would like to see become provisional moderators for this site. Your input will provide valuable insight to help us make our selections. You can read more about the process here: <strong><a href="http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/moderator-pro-tempore/">Moderators Pro Tempore</a>.</strong></p>
<h2>The Nomination Process:</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Nominate a user</strong> by posting an 'answer' below. Each nomination should be a separate answer. Use the template at the bottom of this post to complete your nomination.</li>
<li><strong>Self nominations are encouraged.</strong> This is a volunteer activity, so users should not feel obligated to accept these positions. A self-nomination is simply a way to say, "I am very much interested in this, so let my record speak for itself."</li>
<li><strong>Tell us about the candidates.</strong> Nominations can include links to other activities like Area 51 participation, participation in other sites, or any relevant thoughts/links that may help us make an informed decision.</li>
<li><strong>Nominee should indicate their acceptance</strong> by editing the answer to <strong>accept/decline</strong> the nomination. Nominees: please ensure your profile email is correct so we can contact you. Optionally, you are encouraged to write a bit about yourself following your acceptance.
<blockquote>
<p>I accept/decline this nomination.</p>
<p>Hi, I am name/location/fun fact (all optional). I live in <location>, so I am generally active on this site from <time> to <time>. Some other things you may want to know about me are…</p>
</blockquote></li>
</ul>
<h2>Here is what we'll be looking for in a Moderator candidate:</h2>
<p>We are looking for members who are deeply engaged in the community's development; members who:</p>
<ul>
<li>Have been consistently active during the earliest weeks of this site's creation</li>
<li>Show an interest in their meta's community-building activities</li>
<li>Lead by example, showing patience and respect for their fellow community members in everything they write</li>
<li>Exhibit those intangible traits discussed in <a href="http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/"><strong>A Theory of Moderation</strong></a></li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Nomination Template</h2>
<p>To nominate a candidate, copy and paste the text below as an answer and complete your nomination writeup:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://ai.stackexchange.com/users/<strong>UserID</strong>"><br>
<img src="http://ai.stackexchange.com/users/flair/<strong>UserID</strong>.png"></a><br>
<a href="http://meta.ai.stackexchange.com/users/<strong>UserID</strong>"><br>
<img src="http://meta.ai.stackexchange.com/users/flair/<strong>UserID</strong>.png"></a><br><br>
###Notes:<br><br>
This nominee would be a good choice because …</p>
</blockquote>
<p><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/8Akvq.png" alt=""></p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1166,
"Author": "kenorb",
"AuthorID": 8,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"pm_score": 5,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/users/42\">\n<img src=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/users/flair/42.png\"></a>\n<a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/42\">\n<img src=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/flair/42.png\"></a>\n\n<img src=\"https://stackexchange.com/users/flair/1448821.png\"></p>\n\n<h3>Notes:</h3>\n\n<p>Currently most voted and dedicated user with the relevant knowledge and skills about AI. In addition, he's working in this research area, so he knows what he's talking about. His skills may help to improve quality of this site.</p>\n\n<p>EDIT by NietzscheanAI (formerly known as user217281728): <br>\nMost kind, thanks. I'm happy to accept this nomination and want to work to make this a informative and useful site. I live in the UK, so tend to be active on the site between 07.00 and 23.00 GMT. My varied career has included games software company owner, generative music developer, software architect, pure mathematician and (for the last 13 years) AI researcher.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1167,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/users/75\">\n<img src=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/users/flair/75.png\"></a>\n<a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75\">\n<img src=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/flair/75.png\"></a>\n<a href=\"https://stackexchange.com/users/3364317/ben-n\">\n<img src=\"https://stackexchange.com/users/flair/3364317.png\"></a></p>\n\n<h3>Notes:</h3>\n\n<p>This nominee would be a good choice because of his active involvement in the community's development during the private beta and his experience on Stack Exchange!</p>\n\n<p>I'll step right up and offer my services to the community as a moderator pro tempore. I confess that I'm just an enthusiast when it comes to artificial intelligence, but I have been highly active here on meta, gaining the community's first silver badge: <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/help/badges/68/convention\">Convention</a>. I thoroughly enjoy reviewing and I have been working the queues since the site's beginning. I've also spent a large (probably unhealthy, heh) amount of time reading Meta Stack Exchange and the SE blogs, so I'm familiar with the Stack Exchange model, the software, and the expectations for the various roles. I'm also active on <a href=\"https://meta.superuser.com/users/380318/ben-n?tab=topactivity\">Meta Super User</a>, for what it's worth.</p>\n\n<p>I live in Illinois (midwestern United States), so I'm usually awake from UTC 15:00 to 3:00. You can read about the things I've created in my profile. I have a blog <a href=\"https://fleexlab.blogspot.com/2016/08/ai-stack-exchange-site.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">on which I mentioned the site a while back</a>.</p>\n\n<p>I've been doing what I can to make sure this site survives, and that has required casting a few close votes. Hopefully I haven't come off as too much of a maniacal ruthless reviewer <code>:)</code>. When asked on meta, in comments, or in <a href=\"http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/43371/artificial-intelligence\">chat</a> about why a question is closed, I always write up a helpful, respectful explanation. If I ever do something you think is less than ideal, please feel free to ask me about it! Like all humans (though perhaps not AIs!) I make the occasional mistake, and when I see that's happened, I make it right.</p>\n\n<p>I have my own opinions and judgments, of course, but I would be happy to carry out as moderator pro tempore the consensus of the community, the mod team, and Stack Exchange. We're all in this together.</p>\n\n<p>It's a pleasure building this community with everyone here. I look forward to continuing to the next stage of site growth with y'all!</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1168,
"Author": "kenorb",
"AuthorID": 8,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/users/10\">\n<img src=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/users/flair/10.png\"></a>\n<a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/10\">\n<img src=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/flair/10.png\"></a>\n<a href=\"https://stackexchange.com/users/555192\">\n<img src=\"https://stackexchange.com/users/flair/555192.png\"></a></p>\n\n<h3>Notes:</h3>\n\n<p>The second most voted and active user, data scientist with the right skillset across different AI branches. His answers are reliable and interesting. His skills can be a great asset to improve quality of this site.</p>\n\n<p>EDIT by Matthew Graves: Thanks for the nomination! I'm pleased to accept it. I'm interested in helping this site help people better understand AI and the issues surrounding it, both through direct effort and community building. I've been clearing out review queues here as soon as I got access to them, and that's typically the first thing I check after my comment inbox. </p>\n\n<p>I'm currently in Austin, Texas, and so would typically be online from to about noon to 2am UTC. I've been doing machine-learning related work for, depending on how you count it, about 8 years now, mostly as a student but now also as a data scientist. My research effort has mostly been in numerical optimization, machine reliability, and time series analysis, rounded out by my personal interests in psychology, economics, and philosophy. I've been interested in intelligence for as long as I can remember, and that grew to encompass artificial intelligence as soon as I was introduced to it.</p>\n\n<p>To a large degree I 'grew up on the internet'; forum-posting has been a major hobby for over half of my life at this point. I've consistently had a reputation for being polite, calm, and open-minded; qualities that I hope would serve me well as a moderator.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1169,
"Author": "mindcrime",
"AuthorID": 33,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I'll volunteer myself.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/users/33/\">\n<img src=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/users/flair/33.png\"></a>\n<a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33/\">\n<img src=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/flair/33.png\"></a>\n<a href=\"https://stackexchange.com/users/48222/\">\n<img src=\"https://stackexchange.com/users/flair/48222.png\"></a></p>\n\n<h3>Notes:</h3>\n\n<p>This nominee would be a good choice because - he is passionate about AI and its potential applications for improving the human condition. This nominee is also a strong supporter of open exchange of scientific knowledge and technology, as expressed in the Open Source, Open Web, Open Data, Open Science and Open Hardware initiatives. This nominee has been participating in multiple Stack Exchange communities for many years. </p>\n\n<p>You could consider this nominee to be the \"ruthless NON closer\" as he believes that closing questions is generally harmful to the community, as it is perceived as an aggressive and hostile act by whoever posted the question. This nominee believes that \"bad\" questions can simply be down-voted and allowed to die from lack of activity in <em>almost</em> all cases.</p>\n\n<p>This nominee believes we can strike a balance between being \"beginner friendly\" and still keeping things interesting enough to attract experts, but believes that it will take some time to establish our presence in the AI world and attract the high-level researchers and others of that ilk. </p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>Since I volunteered myself, it should go without saying that I accept this nomination.</p>\n\n<p>Hi, I am Phillip. I live in Chapel Hill, NC, so I am generally active on this site from around 10:00am through 1:00am Eastern time. Some other things you may want to know about me are: I am founder / president at <a href=\"https://www.fogbeam.com\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Fogbeam Labs</a>, an open source software company. I was a volunteer firefighter for many years and was Assistant Fire Chief of my department for the last couple of years I was there. </p>\n\n<p>I am the founder/organizer of the Research Triangle Park \"Semantic Web / Artificial Intelligence / Machine Learning\" Meetup here in the Raleigh/Durham area. I'm also active on <a href=\"http://mindcrime.github.io\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Github</a> and <a href=\"https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=mindcrime\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Hacker News</a>. </p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1170,
"Author": "baranskistad",
"AuthorID": 5,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/5",
"pm_score": 0,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/users/5\">\n<img src=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/users/flair/5.png\"></a>\n<a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/5\">\n<img src=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/flair/5.png\"></a></p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<h3>Notes:</h3>\n\n<p>While I'm not the most knowledgeable about AI, and don't have the highest reputation level, I know a lot about moderating.</p>\n\n<p>In the past three days, every single day, I've cleared all the review ques I have access to. I currently own two organizations, and I moderate, or lead, both of them. I have 2 pending proposals on Area51. I'm active on the Stack Exchange sites almost every single day. I have former experience from moderating as a former FPC from Scratch.</p>\n\n<p>It would be an honor to be a moderator on this site.\nThank you for reading.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1172,
"Author": "Mithical",
"AuthorID": 145,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/145",
"pm_score": 1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/users/8\">\n<img src=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/users/flair/8.png\"></a>\n<a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8\">\n<img src=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/flair/8.png\"></a>\n<a href=\"https://stackexchange.com/users/22370\">\n<img src=\"https://stackexchange.com/users/flair/22370.png\"></a></p>\n\n<h3>Notes:</h3>\n\n<p>This nominee would be a good choice because kenorb is a very active user, a person who knows a lot about AI, and, I feel, cares about helping this community grow. kenorb should be one of our moderators - even if his English isn't perfect, I still think he's perfect mod material. :)</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>First of all, I would like to thank you for nomination and I am pleased to take the responsibility of being a pro tempore mod. I believe that this site has a unique opportunity to make a huge impact to global technology market driven by artificial intelligence and our everyday life in the very near future by sharing advanced knowledge accessible for all.</p>\n\n<p>I have been using SE for over 7 years, I am experienced across a variety of fields and I am familiar with moderation tools and I understand their purpose.</p>\n\n<p>I am an experienced software engineer specialising in a variety of information technology stacks with over 18 years experience consulting across a range of sectors and multination companies. One of the recent one is planning to <a href=\"http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5ea4c668-1364-11e6-91da-096d89bd2173.html#axzz4HXDwufht\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">'to deploy drone army'</a> worldwide which can expand our scope of understanding of artificial intelligence (e.g. imagine flying drones in the restaurant and delivering your food to your table after pressing a single button). Check also my <a href=\"https://stackoverflow.com/cv/kenorb\">user CV profile</a>.</p>\n\n<p>My first AI program was a chat bot written over 18 years ago in Pascal with custom written assembler libraries in order to make my school mates believing that they are chatting on IRC with real people, while being on the computers without any internet connection, so other can play games on spare computers with the real network. This worked, for the first 15-30 minutes, later on they could find out that something was wrong or get bored. Second project was involved AI bots protecting IRC channels. I did some AI in games. Since then I am interested in practical applications of AI. This is my long term hobby and interest. Further projects required more sophisticated requirements. Currently I am working on integration AI with the financial algorithms and systems.</p>\n\n<p>I am good team player, so I am able to cooperate with other mods, I'm also available on daily basis (GMT/DST time). I hope we can improve this site by keeping it away from chaos, spam and trolls, to provide high quality site. </p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1173,
"Author": "Mithical",
"AuthorID": 145,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/145",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/users/145\">\n<img src=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/users/flair/145.png\"></a>\n<a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/145\">\n<img src=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/flair/145.png\"></a>\n<a href=\"https://stackexchange.com/users/5129611\">\n<img src=\"https://stackexchange.com/users/flair/5129611.png?theme=dark\" width=\"208\" height=\"58\" alt=\"profile for Mithrandir on Stack Exchange, a network of free, community-driven Q&A sites\" title=\"profile for Mithrandir on Stack Exchange, a network of free, community-driven Q&A sites\">\n</a></p>\n\n<h3>Notes:</h3>\n\n<p>I would like to offer my services as a pro-tem moderator on this site. I have watched been a relatively active member since I joined on Day 0. I have 135 edits (counting tag-only edits), I was the first one to earn the <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/help/badges/12/strunk-white\">Strunk and White badge</a>, I am the top reviewer for both <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/review/close/stats\">Close Votes</a> and <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/stats\">Reopen Votes</a> on the main site, I was the first reviewer of <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/review/late-answers/stats\">Late Answers</a>, and I was the first reviewer on Meta. I have watched Meta, and pitched in when I could.<br>I was also one of 25 users to earn the <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/help/badges/30/beta\">Beta badge</a>, which means that I was an active user in the Private Beta. I now also have the <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/help/badges/68/convention\">Convention badge</a>, which means that I've been active here on Meta.<br><br> I may not know so much about AI, really, but I do know enough to be able to tell if something answers the question or not, I think. :)</p>\n\n<p>Also, I am one of the only users who has ventured onto <a href=\"http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/43371/the-singularity\">chat</a> :P</p>\n\n<p>I am also active on this Meta, the Puzzling Meta, and the main Meta*.</p>\n\n<p>I am fairly well-versed in the content in the Help Center and site policy, as well.</p>\n\n<p><sub>* Okay, I mostly flag things as off-topic. But I have asked/answered some!</sub></p>\n\n<p><strong>About Me</strong></p>\n\n<p>I'm a 14 year-old kid. The only moderation experience I have is being an admin on 3 Wikias. (Not popular ones - little outdated backwater ones. :P) I live in the UTC+2/3 time zone, although I'm often on late.<br>\nI don't go to school; I'm homeschooled.<br>\nI am not a programmer.<br>\nI have been using SE for a year and 11 months, roughly, so I have a pretty good idea about how the site works :P.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/16
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1165",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/95/"
]
|
1,174
|
<p>This tag doesn't really seem to be much use. <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/brain" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'brain'" rel="tag">brain</a> would seem a more appropriate tag for a site like biology.SE.</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1175,
"Author": "kenorb",
"AuthorID": 8,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"pm_score": 1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I think a lot of topics about AI/ANN wants to achieve a brain simulation, so maybe we can rename it to: <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/brain-simulation\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'brain-simulation'\" rel=\"tag\">brain-simulation</a>.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1176,
"Author": "NietzscheanAI",
"AuthorID": 42,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/42",
"pm_score": 3,
"selected": true,
"text": "<p>What would be the difference between brain-simulation and neuromorphic-computing tags?</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/17
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1174",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/145/"
]
|
1,177
|
<p><a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/deepqa" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'deepqa'" rel="tag">deepqa</a> is just another name for <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/watson" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'watson'" rel="tag">watson</a>. Can we perhaps merge these tags, with <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/watson" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'watson'" rel="tag">watson</a> being the real one?</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1178,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": true,
"text": "<p>Yes, it's pointless to have two tags referring to the same thing. Since <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/deepqa\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'deepqa'\" rel=\"tag\">deepqa</a> had three questions and <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/watson\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'watson'\" rel=\"tag\">watson</a> had four (and all but one DeepQA question had the Watson tag already), I manually merged the tags together by removing <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/deepqa\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'deepqa'\" rel=\"tag\">deepqa</a>.</p>\n\n<p>One could make the argument that DeepQA is the research project while Watson is the product, but all of the questions tagged <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/deepqa\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'deepqa'\" rel=\"tag\">deepqa</a> were about Watson.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1179,
"Author": "kenorb",
"AuthorID": 8,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p><em>Watson</em> is the name of the computer, and <em>DeepQA</em> is the name of the technology and software. They both correlated, but <em>Watson</em> sounds like more specific, but on the other hand there are no any known computers which are using <em>DeepQA</em> which aren't called <em>Watson</em>.</p>\n\n<p>We do not know if there are any other computers which uses <em>DeepQA</em> technology, but not related to <em>Watson</em>. There could be some implementation of <em>DeepQA</em> not being called <em>Watson</em>. To simplify things, both terms can be synonyms where <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/watson\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'watson'\" rel=\"tag\">watson</a> should be the main tag, since it is more popular (it has its own Wikipedia page, where <em>DeepQA</em> does not).</p>\n\n<p>More detailed information about the differences check <a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1180/8\">@Avik post</a> and the following answer:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/1665/8\">Are there any DeepQA-based computers other than Watson?</a></li>\n</ul>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1180,
"Author": "Avik Mohan",
"AuthorID": 1538,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1538",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I would be careful to merge the two together. <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/deepqa\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'deepqa'\" rel=\"tag\">deepqa</a> is very much just that - a deep learning approach to questions and answers. This covers NLP, hypothesis formation, candidate answer generation, and answer selection from the candidates. It is fully limited to that domain. </p>\n\n<p>These pages show what I'm getting at: </p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.research.ibm.com/deepqa/deepqa.shtml\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://www.research.ibm.com/deepqa/deepqa.shtml</a>\n<a href=\"http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_group_subpage.php?id=2159\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_group_subpage.php?id=2159</a>\n<a href=\"http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_group_subpage.php?id=2162\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_group_subpage.php?id=2162</a>\n<a href=\"http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_group_subpage.php?id=2160\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_group_subpage.php?id=2160</a></p>\n\n<p>On the other hand, <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/watson\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged 'watson'\" rel=\"tag\">watson</a> is this titanic over-arching project that dips into culinary arts, healthcare, and more recently education and other topics I'm sure I'm missing. It is the foremost product of IBM's cognitive computing research and has numerous applications and uses, and elements that construct it. It goes well beyond just the QA portion (which is an integral part of Watson, but not the entirety or even nearly a synonym of Watson).</p>\n\n<p>For this reason, I personally think they are certainly different topics, but being new to stack exchange I'm not sure how you would like to handle this.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/17
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1177",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/145/"
]
|
1,197
|
<p>If you browse through the <a href="/questions/tagged/scope" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged 'scope'" rel="tag">scope</a> tag here on meta, you'll see that our scope might not be entirely obvious from the site title. When we open to the public, though, it's really important that we can quickly summarize our scope. Not everybody will have the patience to go through all our meta discussions before posting. Therefore, I think we should try to boil our consensuses down into a sentence or so, suitable for putting on the "sign up" banner.</p>
<p>For example, here's <a href="https://superuser.com/">Super User</a>'s, emphasis mine:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Super User is a question and answer site <strong>for computer enthusiasts and power users</strong>. Join them; it only takes a minute</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/">Programmers</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Programmers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site <strong>for professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development</strong>. Join them; it only takes a minute</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://datascience.stackexchange.com/">Data Science</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Data Science Stack Exchange is a question and answer site <strong>for Data science professionals, Machine Learning specialists, and those interested in learning more about the field</strong>. Join them; it only takes a minute</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What should we have in that spot? As <a href="https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1198/75">mentioned by wythagoras</a>, we do have a default already in the tour, but do we need to adjust it after our meta deliberations?</p>
<p>(This is the fourth <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/223675/295684">real essential meta question</a> for private beta sites.)</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1198,
"Author": "wythagoras",
"AuthorID": 29,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29",
"pm_score": 1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Taking this from the tour and initial Area 51 description:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Artificial Intelligence Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in conceptual questions about life and challenges in a world where \"cognitive\" functions can be mimicked in a purely digital environment.</p>\n</blockquote>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1199,
"Author": "Robert Cartaino",
"AuthorID": 95,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/95",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": true,
"text": "<p>I am in the process of writing up the final review of this site. In it, we discuss the difficulties this site is having with scope — mostly around the <em>popular fallacies</em> of what AI actually is. Artificial intelligence is very different from how it’s portrayed in the movies. Whenever a problem becomes solvable by a computer, people start arguing that it does not require intelligence at all… and \"as soon as it works, no one calls it AI anymore\" — <em>John McCarthy</em></p>\n\n<p>As such, this community is having difficulty navigating that narrow gap of what I'd call \"AI relevance\".</p>\n\n<p>The proposal that created this site was intentionally placed in the <em>'scientific'</em> category. If you accept that we are not creating another programming site, I think we stumbled upon in interesting niche that describes the original premise of this site nicely:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Artificial Intelligence Stack Exchange is a site with a social and scientific focus on \"Advanced Computing in Society.\"</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Think about it. With autonomous cars, smart surveillance, and \"the next big thing\" capturing the headlines, this isn't a terrible idea for a subject. Draping it in the popular AI label gives it a better focus… and it completely disambiguate that <strong>this is <em>not</em> a technical implementation or programming site.</strong> We already have that.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1217,
"Author": "Doxosophoi",
"AuthorID": 1712,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1712",
"pm_score": -1,
"selected": false,
"text": "<blockquote>\n <p>Artificial Intelligence Stack Exchange is a question and answer site <strong>for people interested in conceptual questions about non-biological agents</strong>. Join them; it only takes a minute</p>\n</blockquote>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1236,
"Author": "Trilarion",
"AuthorID": 1865,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1865",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I think that science without mathematics is usually impossible, science without technology is very difficult (otherwise how to talk about computers for example) but science without programming/implementations is possible.</p>\n\n<p>The emphasis would then be on the concepts and/or abstractions.</p>\n\n<p>So kind of:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>pseudocode is okay, real code not</li>\n<li>algorithms are okay, implementations not</li>\n<li>Math is okay as long as the concepts remain abstract.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>How to put that into a single line? </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Artificial Intelligence Stack Exchange is a site <strong>for people\n interested in social, conceptual and scientific questions about Advanced\n Computing</strong>. Join them; it only takes a minute</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I feel this tries most to keep away from any implementations. But I also feel the limit should only be implementations, not higher level programming, algorithms, maths or statistics.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/21
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1197",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75/"
]
|
1,205
|
<p>I've the feeling this would be opinion based or too broad, so I come here for community review before writing a more complete question.</p>
<p>The root of the question is where to put the limit between "automated system" and "artificial intelligence".</p>
<p>For example, would an hybrid car able to start by itself a generator to charge back after a period of use/battery level could be called an artificial intelligence and if not at which point could we start talking about artificial intelligence ? </p>
<p>If this happen to be on-topic, which would be the relevant tags ?</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1206,
"Author": "Mithical",
"AuthorID": 145,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/145",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": true,
"text": "<p>It appears that there is at least one question like this on the site:</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/1461/are-siri-and-cortana-ai-programs\">Are Siri and Cortana AI programs?</a></p>\n\n<p>So I guess it would be okay - as long as you are asking <strong>about one</strong> (or two) <strong>specific thing</strong>(s).</p>\n\n<p>For asking about in general when something is AI, that has already been asked: <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/1507/what-are-the-minimum-requirements-to-call-something-ai\">What are the minimum requirements to call something AI?</a></p>\n\n<p>The tags... Now that's the problem. That might be worth its own Meta post.</p>\n\n<p>And welcome to AI!</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1209,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>In addition to what was said by Mithrandir, I would personally say it's best that such a question focus on <strong>only one thing</strong>. In other words, questions that ask about an aspect of each item in a big list of things would be less than ideal. In the case of Siri and Cortana (smart personal assistants, basically), they're very similar products, so it makes sense to have one question for them.</p>\n\n<p>It would be even better if such questions included <strong>specific features</strong> of the objects/products that the question owner suspects may produce AI. That shows research effort, and in discovering the relevant features, the person who asks might stumble upon an interesting insight themselves. It also has the benefit of covering all products that have that feature (having wide applicability yet focused scope tends to mark great questions in my experience), so we might not even need to name Siri and Cortana in the question title.</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/24
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1205",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1628/"
]
|
1,215
|
<p>There's been some comment discussion as to whether a couple of questions e.g. <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/1784/using-feature-learning-for-a-medical-text-classification-problem">this one</a> and <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/1783/how-to-represent-a-large-decision-tree">this one</a> have been on topic.</p>
<p>In my opinion:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>We should take care not to readily dismiss technical questions
as being 'programming related'. </p></li>
<li><p>It's worth asking whether (even if the question mentions a specific
technique) it could be answered with reference to open issues in AI.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>For example, quite a number of questions (most of which have, in my opinion rightly, been left open without issue) are concerned with how to choose features for learning. In one respect, this is the single biggest issue facing AI: the current vogue for DL approaches is precisely because of the progress they claim in this area.</p>
<p>In particular: <em>the data science community has not solved this problem</em> - they are in general consumers of relatively stable research, rather than at the cutting edge, as is the case for AI.</p>
<p>Hence, we maybe shouldn't dismiss these things as implementation if they can usefully be treated conceptually.</p>
<p>Perhaps we can use "Is this a solved problem (in research terms)" as a heuristic to help us here. There's certainly precident for this: it is precisely the distinction between the 'Mathematics' and 'Math Overflow' SE sites.</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1218,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>When I think of \"implementation\", things like math and code come to mind, while the larger components of AI construction don't fall under that category. Selecting features to build an AI for a certain purpose would therefore be on-topic, though they could easily be too broad. <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/1784/75\">Your first example</a> approaches \"how do I solve this important problem with AI?\", which possibly requires a deep knowledge of that field.</p>\n\n<p>Questions tangentially related to programming, but not actually about the coding of the AI itself, are also OK. <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/1783/75\">Your second example</a> asks how to represent part of an AI's state for debugging visualization. It's a pretty neat question in my opinion, landing squarely in the science part of artificial intelligence.</p>\n\n<p>I would be a little wary of allowing questions about the fine details (i.e. the mathematical/statistical mechanics) of yet-to-be-solved research problems, as those are likely to be much better served at one of the math-heavy sites. Conceptual questions about what kinds of things they work on are interesting and well-suited to our site.</p>\n\n<p>Executive summary: if a question has mathematical formulae or computer code as critical elements, the best home for it is <em>possibly</em> a different site. This answer contains a lot of weasel words to emphasize that's it's not at all a rulebook that applies everywhere. Such an answer would be a tome.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1219,
"Author": "mindcrime",
"AuthorID": 33,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>I would say that it's a judgment call on a case by case basis. I don't think there's a simple rule you can implement that can capture all of the nuance involved here. My feeling is, unless you say with pretty close to <strong>absolute certainty</strong> that a question which includes code would get a better answer somewhere else, it's better to err on the side of leaving it alone.</p>\n\n<p>That a question might contain math is, to me, nearly completely irrelevant to whether a question belongs here or not. Irrelevant in that it's orthogonal to the issue of whether something is \"conceptual\" or \"implementation\". After all, math <strong>is</strong> the language of science. </p>\n"
}
] |
2016/08/30
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1215",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/42/"
]
|
1,221
|
<p>For example:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/1824/8">Why would an AI need to 'wipe out the human race'?</a></li>
</ul>
<p>There is already the website for <a href="https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/">philosophical question</a>, however here we can have more direct answers from the AI experts.</p>
<p>Should we allow such questions?</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1222,
"Author": "NietzscheanAI",
"AuthorID": 42,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/42",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": true,
"text": "<p>Yes. </p>\n\n<p>If we send away everyone asking about philosophy; send everyone asking about feature selection for ANNs to data science and send everyone asking about AI research institutes to chat then there's really not so much left to talk about.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1234,
"Author": "Left SE On 10_6_19",
"AuthorID": 181,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/181",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Yes, but I think many philosophical questions would be better off on Philosophy SE. It depends on the type of question. Questions that AI experts have mostly thought about (like <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/1824/8\">\"Why would an AI need to 'wipe out the human race'?\"</a>) are better suited here, while questions that are tangentially related to AI but are really referring to \"philosophical concepts\" (<a href=\"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/37442/are-robot-rebellions-even-possible\">robotic free will</a> and <a href=\"https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/11450/can-computers-be-programmed-to-be-creative/15617#15617\">AI creativity</a>) are better left to the philosophy experts.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1239,
"Author": "peterh",
"AuthorID": 2255,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/2255",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<ol>\n<li><p>The <a href=\"http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481/artificial-intelligence\">site proposal</a> on the Area51:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>\"For conceptual questions about life and challenges in a world where\n \"cognitive\" functions can be mimicked in purely digital environment.\"</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This very clearly includes the border to the phylosophy.</p></li>\n<li><p><em>Don't narrow the site topics.</em></p>\n\n<p>It results only a mass of people leaving the site disappointed after the closure of their first questions. With them, we lose not only their content, but also the content they could have made if their first experiences had been better.</p>\n\n<p>There is a so-named \"common sense\", what belongs to AI. It is what an ordinary people, who doesn't even know that a meta site exists, thinks what is AI. In my opinion, <em>the topic of the site shouldn't ever be narrowed significantly below this \"common sense\"</em>.</p></li>\n<li><p>Pragmatical reasons.</p>\n\n<p>Currently we are absolutely not in the position where we could have the luxury to close questions. Later it may be better, but (1) and (2) will stay even then.</p></li>\n</ol>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>Note, I don't really like philosophical questions. I think the AI is more like on the engineering/science border as philosophical thing. If the site would seem to sink in the mess of endless philosophical debates, I would suggest to make a <em>little</em> limit (for example, to use the VtC as duplicate votes more rigorously), but this is not the case (now).</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/09/02
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1221",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/"
]
|
1,225
|
<p>As we can see the current <a href="http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/93481/artificial-intelligence">stats of the site</a>: </p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/VvdrO.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/VvdrO.png" alt="site statistics"></a></p>
<p>Alos, we've had similar proposal which all went in vain:</p>
<ol>
<li><a href="http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6607/artificial-intelligence">Closed after 12 days in beta</a></li>
<li><a href="http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/57719/artificial-intelligence">Closed after 18 days in beta</a></li>
</ol>
<p>What should be done to maintain a healthy site? </p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1226,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 4,
"selected": true,
"text": "<p>Don't worry! We've passed the private beta mark, while the sites you mentioned were closed during that stage. That indicates that Stack Exchange reviewed our progress and determined that we're doing well enough to continue into <em>public</em> beta, which is <a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1202/75\">where we are now</a>.</p>\n\n<p>Regarding the Area 51 stats: those goals are what you should expect from a site that's about to graduate fully. In days of old, it was expected that graduation would happen at 90 days in or else the site would indeed be closed. Now, sites can stay in beta as long as necessary. For more information, see <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/257614/295684\">Graduation, site closure, and a clearer outlook on the health of SE sites</a>.</p>\n\n<p>All that said, we should be promoting this site and growing the community. Asking quality questions and providing great answers is an excellent way to improve the site. We're collecting ideas for site promotion here: <a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1/75\">How do we promote this site?</a></p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1232,
"Author": "kenorb",
"AuthorID": 8,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>Recently we've gone through very critical private stage where 3 attempts since the last 6 years failed to success. See: <a href=\"https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/12/no-artificial-intelligence-in-area-51/\">No AI in Area51</a>.</p>\n\n<p>Since we've successfully passed the final review process, we've now more time to improve and expand our site to match the healthy state, before graduating to full site (it can take months or even years to achieve that stage).</p>\n\n<p>If you check <a href=\"http://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday\">All sites statistics</a> and compare to other sites and take into the account that we've just entered the public beta, so it's not so bad as it looks (>30 sites with less questions asked per day). It just takes time for new people to join and starting using the site, not everybody knows about it yet.</p>\n\n<p>As <a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1199/8\">@Robert</a> mentioned few weeks ago:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>we stumbled upon in interesting niche that describes the original premise of this site</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Currently we are in stage of clarifying the scope as per: <a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1197/8\">How can we quickly describe our site?</a></p>\n\n<p>Instead of worrying about it, we should ask ourselves: <a href=\"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1/8\">How do we promote this site?</a></p>\n"
}
] |
2016/09/03
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1225",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1976/"
]
|
1,227
|
<p>I have been thinking about the <em>"shelf life"</em> of the questions & answers here, and have the following observations:</p>
<p><strong>1.</strong> Artificial Intelligence is a rapidly changing, very active research area. I think there are questions open... I mean without <em>current</em> answer, to say it coarsely. I can imagine, that some answers will turn out to be out-of-date or be outperformed many times. It is possible that in one month or one year we get a very different answer, because <strong>(a)</strong> Some people are researching actively and discovered something amazing, or <strong>(b)</strong> New users come to the site (and knew of a better answer).</p>
<p><strong>2.</strong> AI.SX is definitely different from other sites in stackexchage, because the questions are not like <em>quickies</em>. It is not like <em>I need to solve this urgent issue now, how do I do it?</em>. Many questions have different answers, which often complement themselves. Also, from the comments on an answer (or question), it can be edited to include new points and will be better.</p>
<p><strong>3.</strong> The former point is much more noticeable, since this site is about <em>science</em> and not <em>technology</em>. The topic about specific algorithms or techniques has been discussed here on several meta questions. A side-effect is that the questions tend to be (in my opinion) broader. I personally think that is OK, and wish for a certain discussion rather than <strong>the</strong> answer.</p>
<p>Seeing all that, I think that many questions could be left open for... Well, like forever. Because many are <em>active</em> questions, which cannot be <em>solved</em> like in other sites of the network: </p>
<p><strong>Question → Answer → <code>hasaccepted:yes</code></strong></p>
<p>Perhaps that could lead to more answers in community wiki, to which one comes (next month) after reading some new things or hearing another conference? </p>
<p>Or we just get new answers to questions with an accepted answer and switch (the checkmark) if the new is better?</p>
<p>What do you think will happen?</p>
|
[
{
"AnswerID": 1230,
"Author": "Mithical",
"AuthorID": 145,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/145",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<blockquote>\n <p>Or we just get new answers to questions with an accepted answer and switch (the checkmark) if the new is better?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><strong>Yes.</strong> That's <em>exactly</em> what we'll do. It makes no sense to do it any other way.</p>\n\n<p>If we have community-wiki answers to everything, than that complicates the reputation system, also - not enough people will reach new privilege levels.</p>\n\n<p>As the field grows and changes, so too the site - we'll have new questions, and new answers to old questions.</p>\n"
},
{
"AnswerID": 1231,
"Author": "Ben N",
"AuthorID": 75,
"AuthorProfile": "https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/75",
"pm_score": 2,
"selected": false,
"text": "<p>This is something to consider even on very technical sites like Stack Overflow. New developments (e.g. new language features) allow new and better solutions to problems. That's yet another reason why questions should allow new answers even after one is accepted. The accept mark indicates that the answer is the best for the question poster at the time. In some cases, the question poster vanishes, never to be seen again on the site. Fortunately, we have something else to measure answer usefulness:</p>\n\n<p><strong>Votes.</strong> Posts accept votes forever (in most cases), and new answers (among other events) push the question back onto the site front page so it can be examined anew. Community members should definitely read new posts and vote on their quality. In an ideal world, better answers would always overtake old decent answers in score, but that doesn't always happen. If you see a really awesome answer going unnoticed, you might consider <a href=\"https://ai.stackexchange.com/help/bounty\">placing a bounty</a>!</p>\n\n<p>As Mithrandir mentioned, community wiki isn't ideal for this scenario, since it has the undesired effect of disabling reputation changes. Newer users should add new takes on the issue via new answers (or possibly comments, if the changes are tiny).</p>\n"
}
] |
2016/09/03
| ERROR: type should be string, got [
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1227",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://ai.meta.stackexchange.com/users/70/"
]
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
- Downloads last month
- 24